NationStates Jolt Archive

Firstoff, I want everyone to know I'm an athiest so we know that I'm not just saying this to defend religion.

I noticed that there are a lot of atheists that like to go around converting people. Yes, I know that not all of them are like that, but it actually seems to me that an average atheist is more hostile to theistic beliefs than vice versa. But why do you not like religion so much?

We're talking about first-world "moderate" religions like the kind of things American Catholics do (people from those groups are the ones that we most otten come in contact with on these boards; there aren't many militant Muslims from Iran, for example). Other than their stands on abortion (which may or may not have merit), sexual repression, and gay rights, they are really very kind, moral people. Religion in the west does a lot of good things. It gets people to do community service, donate to charity, and stay loyal to their marriage partner. Many atheists portray christians as hostile, extremist maniacs, but there are only a few of those groups in the United States. Almost every religious person I have ever seen was reasonable, very polite, generous, and tolerant of my beliefs. As for the argument, "Religion is a waste because it makes people build expensive churches", well, that's a recreational expense, and if the money wasn't spent on churches it would go into some equally unproductive field like buying plasma TVs or whatever.

So, what are the main reasons that so many athiests want to convert non-militant (note that we are not talking about people in Al-Qaeda, I am asking this question about decent, non-militant people) religious believers? What's so bad about it? In my opinion, conservative politics aside, religion has many more advantages than disadvantages on a purely practical level. It makes people kinder, more willing to donate to charity, and gives many of them a lot of happiness.

Have you ever seen the ( now alas departed ) website whywiccanssuck.com?

Pretty much the same points you're making - as well as the same outlook you have.

Many people find their value-systems sooooo all-important that they wont rest till the whole world shares 'em.

They don't do their thing because of what others are - they do their thing because of what they are.

Firstoff, I want everyone to know I'm an athiest so we know that I'm not just saying this to defend religion.

I noticed that there are a lot of atheists that like to go around converting people. Yes, I know that not all of them are like that, but it actually seems to me that an average atheist is more hostile to theistic beliefs than vice versa. But why do you not like religion so much?

We're talking about first-world "moderate" religions like the kind of things American Catholics do (people from those groups are the ones that we most otten come in contact with on these boards; there aren't many militant Muslims from Iran, for example). Other than their stands on abortion (which may or may not have merit), sexual repression, and gay rights, they are really very kind, moral people. Religion in the west does a lot of good things. It gets people to do community service, donate to charity, and stay loyal to their marriage partner. Many atheists portray christians as hostile, extremist maniacs, but there are only a few of those groups in the United States. Almost every religious person I have ever seen was reasonable, very polite, generous, and tolerant of my beliefs. As for the argument, "Religion is a waste because it makes people build expensive churches", well, that's a recreational expense, and if the money wasn't spent on churches it would go into some equally unproductive field like buying plasma TVs or whatever.

So, what are the main reasons that so many athiests want to convert non-militant (note that we are not talking about people in Al-Qaeda, I am asking this question about decent, non-militant people) religious believers? What's so bad about it? In my opinion, conservative politics aside, religion has many more advantages than disadvantages on a purely practical level. It makes people kinder, more willing to donate to charity, and gives many of them a lot of happiness.


I don't try to convert people ... personally I don't care.

But I WILL correct (or at least point out) any misinformation or fuzzy information they do use for the simple fact that they are always trying to use such things as justifications for fucking with my life.

I like proof that a rule is making a positive social benefit, they often do not provide that proof ... and when they do it is usually based on wish washy personal beliefs, that usually have logic flaws.

Also on some level I like the intellectual challenge of following their line of “logic” and finding the trouble spots

like any human institution, religion has its good parts and its bad parts.

some people got ground in the mill of the bad part so its hard for them to be neutral on the subject.

some people reject religion as a way of rebelling against their parents and society. these are the kind of people who love to proclaim that they are satan worshippers. or the ones who yell most loudly about how believers are stupid stupid stupid.

some people just dont believe. the more vocal ones are annoyed because they see how even moderate religions control your life. its nice to have a belief to fall back on but why should some old man be telling you how to live?

i tend to see more of the good parts of religion. it fills a good spot in peoples lives. its more often a moral influence than an immoral one. i just dont believe.

Anybody with a belief can want to "convert" others to that belief. It could be religion, politics, sexuality, whatever. It doesn't mean that all atheists hate religion any more than all Christians hate Jews. (I hope...)

Perhaps religion is neither good nor bad, but rather a catalyst for human nature. So whether religion is worthwhile depends on your view of human nature.

The problem with religion, as opposed to spirituality is that it encourages dogma. And the power structures of the organisation can easily be corrupted as well, just as with any other human organisation. I also do not like how the Catholic Church raises certain individuals above others to sainthood.

My preference is atheism with morals. Which is what I like to think I have. Though I have surprised a few Christians and Muslims when I professed my ungodly ways.

I oppose the Christian religion simpley for what the cross now represents. 1500 years of murder, torture and repression. Kinda pisses me off.

In fact I personally view the cross as having more blood on it than when I see a Swastika.

I don't think I've ever seen an Atheist try to 'convert' someone... I'm not even sure how you'd do it, or how you'd grade your success...

It's not like we have 'Atheist Baptisms' or anything...

I dont really hate religion, although some religious people piss me off. Im not an atheist becuase of alienation or some problem with organised religion. All religions just seem ridiculous to me, like the easter bunny. (incidentally, all we are told about him is that he is abunny who delivers eggs, but everyone, including me, assumes he is super intelligent - for a rabbit - giant sized, and wears clothes. isnt that odd?)

Anyway, Im actually currently writing a dissertation on religion and mental health, and it seems that it is generally beneficial in many ways. except, funnily enough, for pascals wagerists. ie people who dont have a deep personal belief, but are religious out of fear of hell, or the unknown, or for utilitarian reasons. It sends tham mental. the important thing, whether you are a christian, buddhist, atheist or whatever, is to be true to what you know is right.

A christian may know beyond doubt that God exists, just as I know he doesn't. One of us is obviously wrong, but that deep personal belief and sureness still helps us both stay sane. Someone who just goes to church out of habit or obligation, or to socialize, or just to be sure they dont piss god off, will not get these benefits.

So jump off that fence! the grass is greener on both sides.

Wait, religion helps people stay loyal to their marriage partners?! Are you serious? The divorce rate for religious couples is much higher than the divorce rate for atheist ones.

At any rate, I'm an agnostic and I usually jump into either side of the debate (whichever is making better points already or occasionally to play devil's advocate) and usually, it's not atheists out to convert christians, it's christians out to harass atheists and atheists defending their beliefs.

I don't think I've ever seen an Atheist try to 'convert' someone... I'm not even sure how you'd do it, or how you'd grade your success...

It's not like we have 'Atheist Baptisms' or anything...

No. But it is a fact that atheists often try to make others (non-atheists) see and understand their point(s) of view. Often they will go at great lengths, even insulting others merely to prove their ideas. Also, more often then not they consider their ideas to be 'correct' and religion as 'wrong'. This is a thing that is found in many religions as well.

That's why I consider myself agnostic.

No. But it is a fact that atheists often try to make others (non-atheists) see and understand their point(s) of view. Often they will go at great lengths, even insulting others merely to prove their ideas. Also, more often then not they consider their ideas to be 'correct' and religion as 'wrong'. This is a thing that is found in many religions as well.

That's why I consider myself agnostic.

I have never seen door-to-door Atheist ministry. I have yet to encounter an Atheist 'street preacher' or Atheist Evangelist. I have never seen Atheist TV, dedicated to spreading the 'good word' of (no) god.

Most Atheists discuss religion, because of what religion DOES, not what it IS. As an Atheist, I care not a jot that there are Christians around me, but I DO object to the fact that that 'Christian majority' has determined things I can, and cannot, do - based entirely on THEIR interpretation of THEIR scripture.

I don't usually try to convert people, but when someone use "X is wrong because my religion says so" then there's very little choice for me but to attack thier religion if I want to keep debating.

I don't usually try to convert people, but when someone use "X is wrong because my religion says so" then there's very little choice for me but to attack thier religion if I want to keep debating.

Exactly.

That's why I consider myself agnostic.

Same. Personally I think it's rather arrogant to try to convince people your position is right. I am confident that no one knows anything about god and pretending we do is creating nothing but a cluster F'. However, I am more than willing to listen to ideas of god not institutions.

I have never seen door-to-door Atheist ministry. I have yet to encounter an Atheist 'street preacher' or Atheist Evangelist. I have never seen Atheist TV, dedicated to spreading the 'good word' of (no) god.

True. But I don't get why you are saying this. Are you trying to make the point that since atheists don't have such things, religious people shouldn't either? Don't whine. If you hate it so much, go out on the streets yourself and defend your ideals.

Most Atheists discuss religion, because of what religion DOES, not what it IS. As an Atheist, I care not a jot that there are Christians around me, but I DO object to the fact that that 'Christian majority' has determined things I can, and cannot, do - based entirely on THEIR interpretation of THEIR scripture.

Revoluçion?

I'm totally against the whole idea of religion. I mean, I have religious friends, my mum is catholic and my dad muslim, but religion is the cause of many of the worlds problems.

Take the civil unrest in Iraq for example; Shiite killing Sunni, Sunni killing Shiite.

Look at Israel and Palestine. Jews beleive they are "God's Chosen People" and therefore the Israeli Jews beleive they have a god given right to deprive native Arabs their right to freedom. Its based on a fundamental feeling of superiority over another race which stems from their religion, it is the same with extremist muslims who label non-beleivers "infidels".

The Bush government in America; Fundamental Christianity & Evangelicalism are just as dangerous as Zionism and Extremist Islamists. George Bush claiming God told him to attack Iraq (the attempts to deny it later flopped) - well that so called crusade has so far cost over 35,000 innocent lives.

Northern Ireland - Protestant and Catholics fighting, targeting children just because they had a different way of beleiving in THE SAME GOD!

I'm ashamed that even Tony Blair claimed he will answer to God...No Tony, you'll answer to the British public and the House of Commons before anyone else.

If people want to beleive in religion fine, but people should really start taking responsibilities for their own actions instead of putting everything down to a non-specific deity that has so far failed to prove its existence. Until some higher spirit comes down and tells me in person he/she exists then im sticking by my own beleif that religion causes more problems than it solves and seems like a scapegoat for people to duck out of taking responsibilities

I'm an atheist and I never try to convert anyone. Coem to think o fit, I never see atheists trying to convert people. I hear them state their views on religion and debate it, but that's no different than anyone else. In the end I don't think most atheists care one way or another if you drop your religion or not. I think its just that we eenjoy a good debate. I've certainly never heard of an atheist inquisition. I've never heard of a terrorist screaming, "There's no God!" as ho blows himself up in a shooping mall. I've never seen one on TV saying, "Please, send us money so we can go to Africa and tell all these hunter-gatherers that there's no God."

Don't whine. If you hate it so much, go out on the streets yourself and defend your ideals.

Wait a minute...

But it is a fact that atheists often try to make others (non-atheists) see and understand their point(s) of view

You want atheists to piss you off now? You're confusing.

True. But I don't get why you are saying this. Are you trying to make the point that since atheists don't have such things, religious people shouldn't either? Don't whine. If you hate it so much, go out on the streets yourself and defend your ideals.


Interesting leap of logic... I wonder how you got 'there' from 'here'?

The point is, there is no 'atheist agenda' to 'convert'... it's a kind of loose rebuttal of your assertion that Atheists "go at great lengths... to prove their ideas".

Certainly, if the entire extent of their efforts is discussing the issue with those who DO have door-to-door ministries, etc.


Revoluçion?

Next best thing.

I'm totally against the whole idea of religion. I mean, I have religious friends, my mum is catholic and my dad muslim, but religion is the cause of many of the worlds problems.

Take the civil unrest in Iraq for example; Shiite killing Sunni, Sunni killing Shiite.

Look at Israel and Palestine. Jews beleive they are "God's Chosen People" and therefore the Israeli Jews beleive they have a god given right to deprive native Arabs their right to freedom. Its based on a fundamental feeling of superiority over another race which stems from their religion, it is the same with extremist muslims who label non-beleivers "infidels".

The Bush government in America; Fundamental Christianity & Evangelicalism are just as dangerous as Zionism and Extremist Islamists. George Bush claiming God told him to attack Iraq (the attempts to deny it later flopped) - well that so called crusade has so far cost over 35,000 innocent lives.

Northern Ireland - Protestant and Catholics fighting, targeting children just because they had a different way of beleiving in THE SAME GOD!

I'm ashamed that even Tony Blair claimed he will answer to God...No Tony, you'll answer to the British public and the House of Commons before anyone else.

If people want to beleive in religion fine, but people should really start taking responsibilities for their own actions instead of putting everything down to a non-specific deity that has so far failed to prove its existence. Until some higher spirit comes down and tells me in person he/she exists then im sticking by my own beleif that religion causes more problems than it solves and seems like a scapegoat for people to duck out of taking responsibilities

Religion is not the cause of such things. It is merely the cloak from underneath which people try to achieve the otherwise impossible. I think it is pretty safe to state that such conflicts are about economical and/or political interests instead, but if you say religion is causing it, you can get away with it more easily.

Is religion bad? Well, first we'd have to ask if belief is bad. Is it? I doubt so, since everybody believes in something or someone. It doesn't have to be god. Do you believe in yourself? Do you believe in looking for the intrinsic good in life?

I think organized religion has its benefits, but of course it has its downsides too. Same goes for society. Both religion and society organize people, give them morals, but sometimes they become controlling, or sometimes they seem outdated. Sometimes society as a whole changes, and thus our belief systems do with it- if they aren't subject to change, they'll become outdated fast.

Personally, I'm agnostic. I believe in something, but I have no need of explaining what to anyone. I personally dislike people trying to change my believe systems and my morals, but I do recognize that everything and everyone I come in contact with has an effect on what I think. Sometimes I just don't agree with what someone's trying to tell me. But thats okay, because I believe everyone has the right to belief in what they want, as long as they don't infringe on other peoples' rights.

Most every organized religion has blood on its hands. Most every country has blood on its hands. A lot of people have blood on their hands. Christianity has the crusades, but then again so does Islam. Both religions, along with a few other universal religions, have been competing with each other for centuries, even millenia. Revolutions that help cause our great countries have blood on their hands. So blood isn't the best excuse about religion.

I think it really just comes down to believing in morals, people, events, things, that matter to you. Its better to make your own judgements in life, rather than letting a priest do them for you, but you might want to consider those priest's words, as they may help you better you life. Really people, whatever works for you. Its all about you.

Interesting leap of logic... I wonder how you got 'there' from 'here'?

The point is, there is no 'atheist agenda' to 'convert'... it's a kind of loose rebuttal of your assertion that Atheists "go at great lengths... to prove their ideas".

Certainly, if the entire extent of their efforts is discussing the issue with those who DO have door-to-door ministries, etc.



Next best thing.

You know, I think you're proving his point...

You know, I think you're proving his point...

Lol, I was going to say that. :(

It's not like we have 'Atheist Baptisms' or anything...

Shhhhh!

Even talking about it might tip them off....

You're not supposed to tell them our secrets until after they convert.

Ooops... I 've said to much.

I'm an atheist and I never try to convert anyone. Coem to think o fit, I never see atheists trying to convert people. I hear them state their views on religion and debate it, but that's no different than anyone else. In the end I don't think most atheists care one way or another if you drop your religion or not. I think its just that we eenjoy a good debate. I've certainly never heard of an atheist inquisition. I've never heard of a terrorist screaming, "There's no God!" as ho blows himself up in a shooping mall. I've never seen one on TV saying, "Please, send us money so we can go to Africa and tell all these hunter-gatherers that there's no God."
I see it often on this board; things like, "Why do you believe in religion? It's stupid and illogical. If you had any sense, you'd realise God is no different than a fairy, you believe in a fantasy and the Bible is fiction!"

That basically says, you should stop believing: an atheistic coversion.

Shhhhh!

Even talking about it might tip them off....

You're not supposed to tell them our secrets until after they convert.

Ooops... I 've said to much.

[/tinfoilhatmode]?

I see it often on this board; things like, "Why do you believe in religion? It's stupid and illogical. If you had any sense, you'd realise God is no different than a fairy, you believe in a fantasy and the Bible is fiction!"

That basically says, you should stop believing: an atheistic coversion.
It's a debate. That's all. I can only speak for myself, but I think it is a fairy tale. I will debate it with you because I enjoy debate. I have no personal stake in wether you "convert" or not.

That basically says, you should stop believing: an atheistic coversion.

That's on a message board though. In real life you see far less vocal atheists for fear of being burned at the stake. (Which I pretty much was when I questioned god back in high school).

I've yet to see a single atheist going door to door spreading the word of non-god.

First off, I am going to disagree with you on some points and then give you my point of view. First off you say that American Catholics, Baptists, Lutheran, whatever. (Insert Religion here) are less militant than the rest of the world and that is not true in the least. There are many different sects that I have personally had very volatile confrontations with and probably 1/4 have been started by me. There are sects of people all over the United States that are militant to the core. Ie; There is a fundamentalist christian group in the midwest that is trying to breed a blonde calf, "Golden Calf" and bring about the rapture and apocolypse.

And when you say that religion helps people give to charity I'd like to point out that most of them only do acts of good to qualify for that mythical mystical land of heaven where the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are hiding Sadam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Myself being an athiest I believe would be more inclined to give charity because I know that after this life there is nothing else.

You also ask why we only try to convert the non-militants, this is actually an amazingly easy answer. Because you can't convert militants. You can't convince someone who has been told their entire lives that if they live their life to a specific code that you will go to Paradisio Eterno and they believe it fervently. Let's take Mormons for example, their whole religion is based after an empire of people that lived in North America since the beginning of time, (Note that in their Bible that these people are white.) Evidently when Jesus disappeared for the length of time in his life he sailed in a boat across to North America and gave the word of god to this giant empire in North America and then he went back to the middle east.

The fact that no one has ever found an artifact, ruin, or scrap of evidence from this Empire that supposedly covered all of North America doesn't matter one bit.

Oh and when you asked why I would try to convert or at least stop religion, I have one thing to tell you. Intelligent Design in schools, these fundamentalists are trying to get schools to teach that the world is only 5,000 years old and that everyone descended from Adam and Eve, idiocy is what I call it. And I will not have my children being taught this in Schools, even if it means leaving America

It's a debate. That's all. I can only speak for myself, but I think it is a fairy tale. I will debate it with you because I enjoy debate. I have no personal stake in wether you "convert" or not.
Region can be debated without suggestion that belief be abandoned in favour of reason.

I dont really hate religion, although some religious people piss me off. Im not an atheist becuase of alienation or some problem with organised religion. All religions just seem ridiculous to me, like the easter bunny. (incidentally, all we are told about him is that he is abunny who delivers eggs, but everyone, including me, assumes he is super intelligent - for a rabbit - giant sized, and wears clothes. isnt that odd?)

that is so sad. has popular culture corrupted everything? do you REALLY think that the easter bunny looks like that abomination in the mall -- easter bunny as santa claus?? that is like those nativity scenes for sale in the back of the parade magazine where santa is bringing presents for the baby jesus!

the easter bunny does NOT wear clothes and he does NOT visit the mall. no one has ever seen the easter bunny. he is in all probability invisible. no clothes, no "pookah like" walking on 2 legs. he is an actual rabbit but probably larger and smarter than most.

when my son was small, i was so disgusted by the popular depictions of the easter bunny (i hate that we are on our way to having only 2 templates for big holidays --christmas and mardigras.) that i bought him a cute stuffed animal bunny for easter and told him that THAT was the easter bunny. every year (since we arent religious) i would dig that bunny out of the closet and set it next to a basket of candy and claim that it was given out of gratitude for keeping him nice for another year. my son loved it.

Well, all religion relies on falsehoods and so even the least harmful religions are basically a crutch and leave the believer weakened and unable to confront the harshness of reality. Religion also promotes what I think is a rather unhealthy view of life, where people long to finally die so they can escape to a perfect world and tends to devalue the physical.

Evidently when Jesus disappeared for the length of time in his life he sailed in a boat across to North America and gave the word of god to this giant empire in North America and then he went back to the middle east.
Wow! They really talk about North America in the Bible?

(Insert Religion here) are less militant than the rest of the world and that is not true in the least. There are many different sects that I have personally had very volatile confrontations with and probably 1/4 have been started by me.

So, since 25% of the time you have engaged in militancy with religion; this means religion is militant in general?

Congrats Ramidi, you just prooved the OP's point.

If you quote a passage try qouting the whole thing without twisting it to your own agenda please. I said

" Let's take Mormons for example, their whole religion is based after an empire of people that lived in North America since the beginning of time, (Note that in their Bible that these people are white.) Evidently when Jesus disappeared for the length of time in his life he sailed in a boat across to North America and gave the word of god to this giant empire in North America and then he went back to the middle east."

I'm ashamed that even Tony Blair claimed he will answer to God...No Tony, you'll answer to the British public and the House of Commons before anyone else.


Heh. You rock. You're totally my favorite newb of the day.

I'm in a werid position. I am Catholic by birth, and I have had my communion, but I am more Atheistic by belief. I call myself a Catholic, but I say I am an Atheist when we are taking about G/god/s. I have often gone on about how 'Isa and Jesus are the same, how all the religions are linked. There is no reason to convert anyone to any religion, because in the end, they all want the same thing; for people to be good people. And Atheistic beliefs believe that they don't need to be told to do these things. I call myself a Catholic because I was Commuioned a Catholic. I call myself a Atheist because I don't need to be told to be a good person.

And so, it comes down to my Motto for life. Listen to people, they have things to say.

Sorry for droning on about that, I felt the need to say that. Its sad, I know.

If you quote a passage try qouting the whole thing without twisting it to your own agenda please. I said

" Let's take Mormons for example, their whole religion is based after an empire of people that lived in North America since the beginning of time, (Note that in their Bible that these people are white.) Evidently when Jesus disappeared for the length of time in his life he sailed in a boat across to North America and gave the word of god to this giant empire in North America and then he went back to the middle east."
I'm sorry; I just assumed they got this information from the Bible (i.e. their Bible).

No I was trying to put emphasis on how the OP only mentions American religions in his post and says that they are the only real moderate (non-militant) religions and I was disputing him by saying generally that just because they don't pick up a machine gun and shoot heathens does not mean that they do not believe just as fervently.

Region can be debated without suggestion that belief be abandoned in favour of reason.
That's a telling statement.

Anyways, no it can't, often. There are two sides to any debate. If I'm debating a religious person then they are debating me and they're just as ardent in their attempts to convert me only they probably have more at stake personally than I do.

No. But it is a fact that atheists often try to make others (non-atheists) see and understand their point(s) of view. Often they will go at great lengths, even insulting others merely to prove their ideas.
I find it's usually the christians who start flinging insults.

That's why I consider myself agnostic.
Stop giving the rest of us a bad name. If you're going to be agnostic, do it because you are actually agnostic, not because you don't want to be affiliated with atheists.

I'm sorry; I just assumed they got this information from the Bible (i.e. their Bible).
No problem if I came off a bit sharp, but it does comes from their Bible, but you know when you get to write your own bible...

Anyways here's some food for thought for some fundamentalists christians that might be reading this thread,

If the Bible is the direct word of God..... Why has it been revised so many times?

the easter bunny does NOT wear clothes and he does NOT visit the mall. no one has ever seen the easter bunny. he is in all probability invisible. no clothes, no "pookah like" walking on 2 legs. he is an actual rabbit but probably larger and smarter than most.


I'm sorry, but this statement makes it seem like you actually believe in the Easter Bunny. :(

What I hate isn't religion - it's intolerance. Just because someone isn't violent or militant doesn't mean they can't be intolerant.

I know plenty of christians, and each one has a different attitude. I remember talking to one for over an hour about the idea of an afterlife, with each acknowledging each others points, civilly, and even agreeing on lots of things. I then was in a debating competition with someone who, while not particularly violent or stupid, thought all homosexuals were mentally incompetant. I tore her to shreds, and I'm proud of it.

Unfortunatly, there is a aprt of the christian community, which while not violent or agressive, is still completly intolerant of others.

(As a side note, I have never seen anyone - Christian, athiest, whatever - knock Buddhism or Buddhists in general. Maybe thats because it is one of the most tolerant faiths in the world.)

I'm sorry, but this statement makes it seem like you actually believe in the Easter Bunny. :(

I believe in the same way that Ashmoria does, or at least I think that I do. Anyways I believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and I even respect Jesus.

I do not believe in them as in say, a coporeal form. Like they ever actually walked and talked and lived. But I believe in the morals that they represent.

Or Sikhism

(As a side note, I have never seen anyone - Christian, athiest, whatever - knock Buddhism or Buddhists in general. Maybe thats because it is one of the most tolerant faiths in the world.)

Religion, for many people, provides spiritual comfort, peace of mind, and surcease from pain. For that reason, and no other, I choose not to attack religion. Not because I respect the religion (I don't), but because I respect the person who believes.

Why do I dislike religion so? Several reasons. First, because while historically most wars have been about economics at the base, those wars which have incorporated religion, or worse been primarily about religion (such as the various Crusades) have been the most bloody and foul in our history.
Second, there is religion's inability to tolerate. Most religions (though I will admit, not all) are incapable of true tolerance without a more powerful force, such as a government, keeping them in line - and sometimes not then. That may seem an overgeneraliazation; but I KNOW, that were I to admit to being an Atheist in the 16th century anywhere in Europe, I would have been killed. And in all honesty, the only difference between Christianity today and in the 16th century is that our governments don't allow the zealots to do as they like anymore.
It is, to a certain extent, self preservation.
My third reason is lack of reason. Religious people act on their fantasy worlds as though their false gods and heavens actually existed, and thus often make choices that are irrational and stupid. For instance, in the 19th century most theologians were of the opinion that God would not allow any part of his creation to become extinct. So, no effort was made to preserve such species as the Passenger Pigeon or the Bison. The latter managed to hold on - the former did not.
My fourth and final major reason is that they will not leave me alone. Various religions attempt to impose their will upon me, by designating moral positions, commanding my allegiance, or outright conversion to their irrational nonsense.
If you are religious and any of the above offends you: good.

Anyways, no it can't, often. There are two sides to any debate. If I'm debating a religious person then they are debating me and they're just as ardent in their attempts to convert me only they probably have more at stake personally than I do.

Well, as I am agnostic I've had both atheists and religious people try to convince me of their beliefs. The problem is that neither can give compelling evidence of why they are right.

Until that happens, I'll say in my cozy agnostic bubble.

No I was trying to put emphasis on how the OP only mentions American religions in his post and says that they are the only real moderate (non-militant) religions and I was disputing him by saying generally that just because they don't pick up a machine gun and shoot heathens does not mean that they do not believe just as fervently.

Fervent belief =/= militancy

If you follow your concept, YOUR MILITANT by your own admission.

I was told to post here, so I posted here.

I'm totally against the whole idea of religion. I mean, I have religious friends, my mum is catholic and my dad muslim, but religion is the cause of many of the worlds problems.

...

What seems to be missing so far, is the distinction of who, exactly, tends to be attacking religion as an institution. In my mind, there are two types of atheists: those who know they are right, and those who say they are right. It's the latter of the two who, trying to convince themselves that there is no god, attack religion; it's all an insecurity thing.

Now, just to get my view out there, I'm having problems seeing how, exactly, the good of organized religion outweighs the bad. In my opinon, any good that has been mentioned that supposedly results from organized religion doesn't really stem from that at all. if a person wants to give a charity, they will do so, whether a church is the donation center or not. I forget who said it, but hardcore Christianity actually does tend to inflate the divorce rates, simply because teenagers tend to get married too young because they are sick of having to wait for sex. No, I'm not advocating a free-sex society (too many STDs there) I'm just saying that if it wasn't MADE into a big deal, it wouldn't BE a big deal.
Organized religion tends to increase the number of people who follow blindly just because they've been brainwashed since baptism (or whatever other ceremony, according to whatever religion). People should just make up teir OWN minds about what they believe. If it corresponds with any given religion, awesome; but if not, why should anyone care?

Oh damn, this is probably going to be seen as an anti-religion rant...oops. It really does apply to more than just organized religion; it applies to just about everything that causes blind followers...like slightly insane politicians whom shall not be named for fear of following rants.

Oh, and just because I don't think I had enough proof of blind following:
Jim Jones, enough said.

Fervent belief =/= militancy

If you follow your concept, YOUR MILITANT by your own admission.

Sorry if I worded my response incorrectly, I did not mean to state that fervent belief and militancy are the same thing. BUT you do have to have one to have the other, you'll never go to a Palestinian insurgent and ask them if they truly believe in Allah and have them shrug in reply.

I believe in the same way that Ashmoria does, or at least I think that I do. Anyways I believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and I even respect Jesus.

I do not believe in them as in say, a coporeal form. Like they ever actually walked and talked and lived. But I believe in the morals that they represent.
Okay, ummmm....


Not sure how to respond to this...


Your parents did actually tell you they didn't exist, right? :confused:

Santa Clause as you know him was created by a Coca Cola advertising campaign. You knwo that, right? :confused:

What about the Tooth Fairy? :confused:

Ack! SO many posts since I started typing!!


I believe in the same way that Ashmoria does, or at least I think that I do. Anyways I believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and I even respect Jesus.

I do not believe in them as in say, a coporeal form. Like they ever actually walked and talked and lived. But I believe in the morals that they represent.


Actually, it's a historical fact that Jesus did exist and strong evidence says that a lot of what the gospels (the 4 well-known ones and what was found in the Dead Sea scrolls) is true.

P.S. has anyone heard about this new find that says Jesus probably ASKED Judas to "betray" Him? If that's true, then it'll kill a bunch of the New Testament.

Sorry if I worded my response incorrectly, I did not mean to state that fervent belief and militancy are the same thing. BUT you do have to have one to have the other, you'll never go to a Palestinian insurgent and ask them if they truly believe in Allah and have them shrug in reply.

Well, you can probably have militancy without fervent belief/religion - just take a look at your everyday police state - but all too often fervent belief/religion does automatically spring militancy, as it is needed to spread their word.

The original question, by the OP was why is religion all that bad. It has been sidetracked into a discussion of the possibility of atheistic conversion etc.

Back to the original question for now.

Other than their stands on abortion (which may or may not have merit), sexual repression, and gay rights, they are really very kind, moral people. Religion in the west does a lot of good things. It gets people to do community service, donate to charity, and stay loyal to their marriage partner.

Can you not see the influence of the dominant religions in your evaluation of what is good here. Giving to charity may be justifiable in some cases but it is not necessarily good. And as for staying loyal to a marriage, that is just part of the sexual repression that you identify as being bad. The point I want to make is that what is bad about religion is that it inevitably tells individuals how to live their lives while not caring about the specific circumstances of those lives.

I would like to make a clear distinction though between religion and faith. Religion is, imo, a social institution that is driven by the desire for power of the leaders of these institutions. If they were institutions directed to social welfare, then I would have no great problem with them, but as they are not primarily this, they are primarily social constructs that allow a few clever individuals to live comfortably and tell others what to do, without their having to actually work for a living, I find them to be intolerable.
Faith, on the other hand, is a matter of personal belief and I have no right to criticise others for what they hold to be true in areas where proof is necessarily unobtainable.
There are loose faith based organisations - wicca for example, that I have no problem with as these are more social groups than institutions. They do not try to control public lifew and as such do not figure in my view as religions per se. (they lack essential properties to be a religion as I understand the)

So what is wrong with religion: - it is the biggest confidence scheme ever mounted and it interferes with my freedom to live according to my beliefs.

What seems to be missing so far, is the distinction of who, exactly, tends to be attacking religion as an institution. In my mind, there are two types of atheists: those who know they are right, and those who say they are right. It's the latter of the two who, trying to convince themselves that there is no god, attack religion; it's all an insecurity thing.

Now, just to get my view out there, I'm having problems seeing how, exactly, the good of organized religion outweighs the bad. In my opinon, any good that has been mentioned that supposedly results from organized religion doesn't really stem from that at all. if a person wants to give a charity, they will do so, whether a church is the donation center or not. I forget who said it, but hardcore Christianity actually does tend to inflate the divorce rates, simply because teenagers tend to get married too young because they are sick of having to wait for sex. No, I'm not advocating a free-sex society (too many STDs there) I'm just saying that if it wasn't MADE into a big deal, it wouldn't BE a big deal.
Organized religion tends to increase the number of people who follow blindly just because they've been brainwashed since baptism (or whatever other ceremony, according to whatever religion). People should just make up teir OWN minds about what they believe. If it corresponds with any given religion, awesome; but if not, why should anyone care?

Oh damn, this is probably going to be seen as an anti-religion rant...oops. It really does apply to more than just organized religion; it applies to just about everything that causes blind followers...like slightly insane politicians whom shall not be named for fear of following rants.

Oh, and just because I don't think I had enough proof of blind following:
Jim Jones, enough said.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This guy knows what he is talking about, He just posted my arugement in essence.

I'd like to add though, no matter the origin's of organized religion or the benevolent intentions used in the act. Unfortunately it has primarily over the course of history been used to control people, There are exceptions! such as most Jews and Buddhists and those who believe in Shinto and smaller minorities that I am either un aware of or forgot to mention.

But back to controlling, Holy Roman Empire? Spanish Conquest of the New World? Ottoman Empire? All these major points in history followed the same path. Conquer, Subjugate, Convert. Religion was used to control newly conquered people and to conquer people for centuries.

The Crusades for example, If the Pope had not said that every man who helps reclaim the holy land would go straight to Heaven do you think that half of the people would gone in the first place? I think not. If he just said that there was a big pile of gold in Jerusalem rather than eternal salvation 5 bloody wars could have been avoided altogether.

You know, I think you're proving his point...

I might be... but if so, I'm not sure what the point was.

Do I object to Witnesses knocking on my door? Not at all.. I've had some good conversations with people attempting to witness of minister to me.

Do I object to people standing on street corners, spreading their good word? Really kind of depends on how loud they are, and if I'm trying to get somewhere... but I have no real problem with it that I wouldn't have with someone standing on a street corner yelling about oranges.

I'm not sure what it is I'm perceived to be 'whining' about...?

Ack! SO many posts since I started typing!!





Actually, it's a historical fact that Jesus did exist and strong evidence says that a lot of what the gospels (the 4 well-known ones and what was found in the Dead Sea scrolls) is true.

P.S. has anyone heard about this new find that says Jesus probably ASKED Judas to "betray" Him? If that's true, then it'll kill a bunch of the New Testament.

Just a news report on this:

Judas 'helped Jesus save mankind' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4882420.stm)

I'm sorry, but this statement makes it seem like you actually believe in the Easter Bunny. :(
you have a problem with that?

Ironically most religions agree on the major things - dont steal, dont kill, dont be a jerk.

If religion gives you faith and comfort, if it helps you be good to other people, then fantastic. But if you use it as an excuse to be violent or intolerant towards other people, then you are no better than any other racist or sexist.

Are you for real????????????????????????
The moderate christian church, especially Catholicism, has for centuries tortured people from all colours and creeds. Priests molesting young children and abusing their position of trust for example.

If a religious person is kind, caring and a genuinly nice person, can this not be put down to their own natural personality.

Funny story though. I have a friend who is a very intelligent lady. However, on the topic of dinosaurs - she thinks ':confused: :confused: its all a bit too far fetched'

Okay, ummmm....


Not sure how to respond to this...


Your parents did actually tell you they didn't exist, right? :confused:

Santa Clause as you know him was created by a Coca Cola advertising campaign. You knwo that, right? :confused:

What about the Tooth Fairy? :confused:

Damn Dan can you read? I specifically pointed out that I do not believe that they ever EXISTED, I believe in the MORALS that they represent Christmas is about coming together as a family and sharing with others rather than indulging yourself. etc etc.

I might be... but if so, I'm not sure what the point was.

Do I object to Witnesses knocking on my door? Not at all.. I've had some good conversations with people attempting to witness of minister to me.

Do I object to people standing on street corners, spreading their good word? Really kind of depends on how loud they are, and if I'm trying to get somewhere... but I have no real problem with it that I wouldn't have with someone standing on a street corner yelling about oranges.

I'm not sure what it is I'm perceived to be 'whining' about...?

In your post you seemed to be discontent about these events. If you were not, I have misinterpreted it.

Well, as I am agnostic I've had both atheists and religious people try to convince me of their beliefs. The problem is that neither can give compelling evidence of why they are right.

Until that happens, I'll say in my cozy agnostic bubble.

I'm beginning to suspect that different people are meaning different things when they use the terms 'Atheist' and 'Agnostic'...

On the subject of 7 AM Sunday ministers visiting the house, try answering the door naked. Haven't had any for seven months or so now.

In your post you seemed to be discontent about these events. If you were not, I have misinterpreted it.

No - I don't mind free expression at all.. although there seems to be a media bent that says it's OKAY to freely express religion, but NOT okay to freely express not wanting to be involved with religion.

What I have objected to, as I said (back there, somewhere) is things like, not being able to buy a bottle of wine on a Sunday, because I live in a 'christian' community.

I noticed that there are a lot of atheists that like to go around converting people. Yes, I know that not all of them are like that, but it actually seems to me that an average atheist is more hostile to theistic beliefs than vice versa. But why do you not like religion so much?

I'm only hostile when people try and aggressively convert me, especially when they use the "you're going to hell!" line - which shows no respect for my beliefs, so why should I respect theirs? I have learned to promptly tell them that they're going to rot. (unless I can't make a quick escape and would have to put up with their bullshit.)

Otherwise, it doesn't worry me. I have several religious friends, and I can easily (and often do) have religious discussions with them without sparking any hostility and keeping a mutual respect there.

And...I've never tried to actively convert someone. I don't see how that's really possible, anyway...it's up to them to question their own faith, not me to question theirs.

I'm beginning to suspect that different people are meaning different things when they use the terms 'Atheist' and 'Agnostic'...

Well, what's your definition?

What I have objected to, as I said (back there, somewhere) is things like, not being able to buy a bottle of wine on a Sunday, because I live in a 'christian' community.

Really? That's just wrong indeed. But is that because the shops aren't open or because the shops just don't sell booze on sunday's?

Firstoff, I want everyone to know I'm an athiest so we know that I'm not just saying this to defend religion.

I noticed that there are a lot of atheists that like to go around converting people. Yes, I know that not all of them are like that, but it actually seems to me that an average atheist is more hostile to theistic beliefs than vice versa. But why do you not like religion so much?

We're talking about first-world "moderate" religions like the kind of things American Catholics do (people from those groups are the ones that we most otten come in contact with on these boards; there aren't many militant Muslims from Iran, for example). Other than their stands on abortion (which may or may not have merit), sexual repression, and gay rights, they are really very kind, moral people. Religion in the west does a lot of good things. It gets people to do community service, donate to charity, and stay loyal to their marriage partner. Many atheists portray christians as hostile, extremist maniacs, but there are only a few of those groups in the United States. Almost every religious person I have ever seen was reasonable, very polite, generous, and tolerant of my beliefs. As for the argument, "Religion is a waste because it makes people build expensive churches", well, that's a recreational expense, and if the money wasn't spent on churches it would go into some equally unproductive field like buying plasma TVs or whatever.

So, what are the main reasons that so many athiests want to convert non-militant (note that we are not talking about people in Al-Qaeda, I am asking this question about decent, non-militant people) religious believers? What's so bad about it? In my opinion, conservative politics aside, religion has many more advantages than disadvantages on a purely practical level. It makes people kinder, more willing to donate to charity, and gives many of them a lot of happiness.

By the way... as an example of what I mean...

The original poster claims to ba an Atheist, and I have no legitimate reason to doubt him/her/it/them...

BUT:

Even when an Atheist considers this topic, and opens dialogue about it... do you notice that the Atheistic position is AUTOMATICALLY assumed to be one that is somehow 'contrary', and in need of 'defending'?

An agnostic is someone who holds that it is impossible to know whether there is a God or not.

An atheist holds that there is no God.

Personally, while I would debate with a religious person, I would not be so arrogant to believe that I can persuade a person to renounce their faith based on a single conversation

Actually, it's a historical fact that Jesus did exist and strong evidence says that a lot of what the gospels (the 4 well-known ones and what was found in the Dead Sea scrolls) is true.
No, it really isn't.

Sorry if I worded my response incorrectly, I did not mean to state that fervent belief and militancy are the same thing. BUT you do have to have one to have the other, you'll never go to a Palestinian insurgent and ask them if they truly believe in Allah and have them shrug in reply.

But you have been constantly stating the equality of the two since your first post.

First off you say that American Catholics, Baptists, Lutheran, whatever. (Insert Religion here) are less militant than the rest of the world and that is not true in the least.

To respond and provide example you bring up minority radical fundamentalist groups and Mormons. None of which are represented by American Catholics, the SBC/RBC, Lutheran (including Missouri Synod), Presbyterians (OPC, PCA, PCUSA, EPC, ERC), Methodists (United and African), Episcopalians and Anglicans; all of which make up the massive majority of "moderate" Western Christians, nor even the majority of American Muslims [IOW: The religions to which the OP was reffering to].

This would be like me decrying American Islam, by bringing up examples of the acts and operations of the NOI.

you have a problem with that?
Not a personal or moral problem, no. I think it's kinda funny, though. :)

Most religions tend to shun atheism.

When you're a Christian, you have the entire Christian world (hypothetically) to back you up. In a school, on the street, on teh intrenets...

As an atheist you don't. You are disliked by every major religion and basically all religious fanatics both medium and spicy.

I've noticed personally that atheists take a lot of shit, especially in schools. Long before any atheist goes around "converting" anyone with logic or reason, he gets pasted by all the kids who think God Is Great and who rally their fellow religious kids against the atheist, should he DARE to speak up and voice his opinion.

But I'm not saying religion is all that bad. I mean it's certainly a great motivational factor. Take 9/11 for example. When you've got religion, you can accomplish great things you wouldn't be able or willing to otherwise!

I *am* saying however, that it's a fallacy to say that atheists are against religion - as if they're the only ones. Frankly, everyone is against religion. Sure, you might choose one to follow, a few to respect... but there's always at least one religion whose culture or people or teachings you dislike, no matter if you happen to be atheist, agnostic or Baptist.

So don't ask *atheists* if religion is all that bad. Ask the millions of Christians who think Islam is barbaric, if religion is such a universally great thing. Ask agnostics - or do you think agnosticism means you have some sort of peace with religions?

And as for "conversion," well, I've never seen anyone "converted" to atheism. SO WHAT if atheists try to make others "see and understand their views." is that so bad? is it better if no one understands anyone else? That's a religious viewpoint itself. It doesn't matter what those heathen Catholics/Muslims/Jews/atheists/agnostics/pagans/Democrats think! Understanding is bad! Communication is bad!

Well, what's your definition?


The defiitions I have found most useful (I didn't invent them), are:

Agnostic: Believes it is impossible to KNOW (hence the 'gnostic') for sure if there is a God or Gods.

Atheist (Explicit): Believes that there is a 'lack of God or Gods'.

Atheist (Implicit): Lacks belief in God or Gods. (Skeptical Atheism)


Really? That's just wrong indeed. But is that because the shops aren't open or because the shops just don't sell booze on sunday's?

Around here? It's because they refuse to sell such products on a Sunday. So - I can't have a glass of wine with my Sunday Lunch, because someone else has a religious hangup over it.

Just a news report on this:

Judas 'helped Jesus save mankind' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4882420.stm)

This is news?

Not a personal or moral problem, no. I think it's kinda funny, though. :)
perhaps when youre a parent you will appreciate it more

when you have to negotiate the minefields of santa, the toothfairy and the easter bunny. when you have to actually make the decision of whether or not you want to turn easter into "christmas lite" by having your child sit on the easter bunny's lap and ask it for presents.

The defiitions I have found most useful (I didn't invent them), are:

Agnostic: Believes it is impossible to KNOW (hence the 'gnostic') for sure if there is a God or Gods.

Atheist (Explicit): Believes that there is a 'lack of God or Gods'.

Atheist (Implicit): Lacks belief in God or Gods. (Skeptical Atheism)

Hmm, okay. Those are the definitions I use as well. No problem there. :)

Around here? It's because they refuse to sell such products on a Sunday. So - I can't have a glass of wine with my Sunday Lunch, because someone else has a religious hangup over it.

Yup, that's pretty incorrect. But the shopkeeper is liberty to decide wether or not he/she will sell alcohol in his shop on sunday. After all it's his shop and if you don't like it you can go to another shop.

However, if I made a shop and said I don't sell stuff to religious people that would be considered discrimination. Icky point there.


The solution would be that you buy your wine on saturday ;) .

So what is wrong with religion: - it is the biggest confidence scheme ever mounted and it interferes with my freedom to live according to my beliefs.

All while decrying against those who happen to be a part of (members of) those institutions, the freedom to live according to THEIR beliefs.... If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I do not know what is.

Religious institutions ARE social institutions... There is no differing between the two... The entire PCUSA General Assembly is the same thing as the local Wicca group (on a larger scale).... Generally as a social group grows, the need for a government becomes tantamount; this happens in politics, this happens in religion, and all of it happens equally to any social institution regardless of its type. Some are small and only institute locally (Non-denominational), some operate in loose alliances (Baptist Conventions), some operate in legislative assembles (Presbyterians), and some like strict hierarchial systems (Epsicopalians and Catholics).

Yup, that's pretty incorrect. But the shopkeeper is liberty to decide wether or not he/she will sell alcohol in his shop on sunday. After all it's his shop and if you don't like it you can go to another shop.

However, if I made a shop and said I don't sell stuff to religious people that would be considered discrimination. Icky point there.


The solution would be that you buy your wine on saturday ;) .

Actually, if the county/state/country you are in is primarily say Islamic and passes a law saying you can't eat pork it isn't the shopkeeper's choice to sell it to one person or not, or to close on a specific day or not. Even if the shopkeeper is not even Islamic

The defiitions I have found most useful (I didn't invent them), are:

Agnostic: Believes it is impossible to KNOW (hence the 'gnostic') for sure if there is a God or Gods.

Atheist (Explicit): Believes that there is a 'lack of God or Gods'.

Atheist (Implicit): Lacks belief in God or Gods. (Skeptical Atheism)



Around here? It's because they refuse to sell such products on a Sunday. So - I can't have a glass of wine with my Sunday Lunch, because someone else has a religious hangup over it.
i think that, while it might not technically qualify, is is practical to add in one more definition of agnostic. one who has a vague belief in "god" but feels that there is no way to know exactly what religion (if any) he expects us to follow.

many many people have a deepseated belief in the divine but have no belief in any structured way of dealing with it. those i know who feel this way consider themselves agnostic.

in new mexico we arent as strict. you can buy alchohol after noon on sunday.

perhaps when youre a parent you will appreciate it more

when you have to negotiate the minefields of santa, the toothfairy and the easter bunny. when you have to actually make the decision of whether or not you want to turn easter into "christmas lite" by having your child sit on the easter bunny's lap and ask it for presents.
Yeah, I'm 37 years old so I may not be a parent but plenty of my friends and family are and none of them actually believe in the Easter Bunny. They maintain the facade for their children until they start to get into double digit ages, but I've never heard any of them argue about what kind of clothes the Easter Bunny wears with their adult friends. I can't swear to this, but I'm pretty sure my parents didn't either. :)

Okay I'd like everyone to take a step back real quick and take a look at this whole thread,

those of you who saying that Athiests don't convert people, or they have never converted someone or even tried to, should take a second and realize that everytime you post on this thread and you try to prove your point on something, you are trying to convert us to your way of thinking. Just thought you ought to know.

Actually, if the county/state/country you are in is primarily say Islamic and passes a law saying you can't eat pork it isn't the shopkeeper's choice to sell it to one person or not, or to close on a specific day or not. Even if the shopkeeper is not even Islamic
a nonmoslem living in saudi arabia isnt even allowed to bring in a bit of pork for their own consumption.

Okay I'd like everyone to take a step back real quick and take a look at this whole thread,

those of you who saying that Athiests don't convert people, or they have never converted someone or even tried to, should take a second and realize that everytime you post on this thread and you try to prove your point on something, you are trying to convert us to your way of thinking. Just thought you ought to know.

So you're trying to convert everyone right now?

Every time someone makes a point, it's an attempt at conversion?

You know what, I don't think you've watered down the definition of "convert" enough. Where's Katrina when you need her?

i think that, while it might not technically qualify, is is practical to add in one more definition of agnostic. one who has a vague belief in "god" but feels that there is no way to know exactly what religion (if any) he expects us to follow.

yes I've actually heard of Agnostic's being those who believe in one or more higher powers but do not belong to any one denomination. They do this because they cannot prove or disprove any one god over another

Actually, if the county/state/country you are in is primarily say Islamic and passes a law saying you can't eat pork it isn't the shopkeeper's choice to sell it to one person or not, or to close on a specific day or not. Even if the shopkeeper is not even Islamic

That's why a person called Montesquie invented a seperation between 'curch' and 'state'. To prevent such things from happening.

Okay I'd like everyone to take a step back real quick and take a look at this whole thread,

those of you who saying that Athiests don't convert people, or they have never converted someone or even tried to, should take a second and realize that everytime you post on this thread and you try to prove your point on something, you are trying to convert us to your way of thinking. Just thought you ought to know.
so the only way to not be guilty of trying to convert people is to refuse to explain yourself no matter how sincerely you are asked about it?

Okay I'd like everyone to take a step back real quick and take a look at this whole thread,

those of you who saying that Athiests don't convert people, or they have never converted someone or even tried to, should take a second and realize that everytime you post on this thread and you try to prove your point on something, you are trying to convert us to your way of thinking. Just thought you ought to know.

Yep, debate is an attempt to convert... Even if you do not care what position the other person takes in the end.

In this essence, there is no difference between the Street Preacher who attempt to inform everyone he meets about his beliefs, and the Atheist who takes every opportunity of discussion about religion to inform his listeners about his beliefs.

Okay I'd like everyone to take a step back real quick and take a look at this whole thread,

those of you who saying that Athiests don't convert people, or they have never converted someone or even tried to, should take a second and realize that everytime you post on this thread and you try to prove your point on something, you are trying to convert us to your way of thinking. Just thought you ought to know.
That's a load of crap. We're arguing for our beliefs, that's all. Hell, every single debate that ever takes place is a contest of positions. You can make the same claim about people who advocate further hikes in the Fed's intrest rates or for those who feel the IMF needs to give loan relief to African nations. How woudl you expect someone to behave in a debate? The point is that atheism has no inherent benefit to conversion. Atheists argue in favor of atheism the same way basketball fans argue that it is better than hockey. Atheists don't blow people up for their beliefs. They don't start tv channels to try to get money so they can buy atheist bibles to send to starving people who would probably just prefer some food. They don't threaten people with eternal damnation if they don't convert to atheism. They don't burn peopl at the stake for praying to a nonexistant God. This forum is, more than anything else, a debate forum. Almost every thread here is a debate thread. Of course Atheists will debate their points of view here. In the real world the amount of atheistic conversion activity is pretty damn close to zero and where it does happen it does not include intimidation and violence.

so the only way to not be guilty of trying to convert people is to refuse to explain yourself no matter how sincerely you are asked about it?

I'm just trying to say some of the people posting put way too much stock in the word convert, in this instance it means the same thing as convince, but people do not pay attention to convince so much as they do convert.

All while decrying against those who happen to be a part of (members of) those institutions, the freedom to live according to THEIR beliefs.... If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I do not know what is.

Religious institutions ARE social institutions... There is no differing between the two... The entire PCUSA General Assembly is the same thing as the local Wicca group (on a larger scale).... Generally as a social group grows, the need for a government becomes tantamount; this happens in politics, this happens in religion, and all of it happens equally to any social institution regardless of its type. Some are small and only institute locally (Non-denominational), some operate in loose alliances (Baptist Conventions), some operate in legislative assembles (Presbyterians), and some like strict hierarchial systems (Epsicopalians and Catholics).

Nice selective quoting there. If you examine what I said I made a difference - clearly - between faith (Belief if you will) and religions. Religious institutions are part of our society, but they are far from being social institutions in their intent and purpose. The RC church is the wealthiest organisation on the planet, but do they use this wealth to help resolve social problems? No. They comission works of art for the Vatican instead.

The point I am making is that one can have all the faith and belief one wants without there having to be a politicaly motivated organisation that describes itself as the guardian of your faith.

You can be free to live according to your beliefs without needing a religious institution to provide the conditions. Only when you want to impose your beliefs on others in the society does the political aspect of these institutions become relevent. If you do not want to drink alcohl, then don't - if you do not want to partake in trade on a holy day, then don't. You are free to act according to your beliefs without the church or religion being there as a political force. I do not have any intent to restrict the faith of others. I simply object to the institutions of these faiths going beyond their remit and trying to control the behaviour of those that are not of their faith.

That's a load of crap. We're arguing for our beliefs, that's all. Hell, every single debate that ever takes place is a contest of positions. You can make the same claim about people who advocate further hikes in the Fed's intrest rates or for those who feel the IMF needs to give loan relief to African nations. How woudl you expect someone to behave in a debate? The point is that atheism has no inherent benefit to conversion. Atheists argue in favor of atheism the same way basketball fans argue that it is better than hockey. Atheists don't blow people up for their beliefs. They don't start tv channels to try to get money so they can buy atheist bibles to send to starving people who would probably just prefer some food. They don't threaten people with eternal damnation if they don't convert to atheism. They don't burn peopl at the stake for praying to a nonexistant God. This forum is, more than anything else, a debate forum. Almost every thread here is a debate thread. Of course Atheists will debate their points of view here. In the real world the amount of atheistic conversion activity is pretty damn close to zero and where it does happen it does not include intimidation and violence.

This is exactly my point! You bristle up like damned porcupine when I even mention the word convert, but guess what IT'S JUST A WORD! What matters is what you use to word for!

Okay I'd like everyone to take a step back real quick and take a look at this whole thread,

those of you who saying that Athiests don't convert people, or they have never converted someone or even tried to, should take a second and realize that everytime you post on this thread and you try to prove your point on something, you are trying to convert us to your way of thinking. Just thought you ought to know.

A gross generalisation. All I am doing here is attacking the institution of religion. I have no desire to or interest in causing any change in your faith. That is yours and for you to decide.

Why is it that some people fail to see the distinction between faith or belief and religion?

Why is it that some people fail to see the distinction between faith or belief and religion?

I do know the difference, I just think you are interpreting my words wrong. I believe that there is no problem with same sex marriage, I even encourage it. But that does not mean I am going to pray for it to one god or another

I'm just trying to say some of the people posting put way too much stock in the word convert, in this instance it means the same thing as convince, but people do not pay attention to convince so much as they do convert.
true

but some people want to be understood; others want you to think they are right.

This is exactly my point! You bristle up like damned porcupine when I even mention the word convert, but guess what IT'S JUST A WORD! What matters is what you use to word for!
Okay, then this is a stupid debate. If you are going to water down the OPs point, which was clearly to try to draw a similarity between religious people "converting" people to their religion, and now make it mean to try to test their position through debate then this is a pointless exercise.

Suffice it to say that most people when they think of religious conversion do not equate it with civil debate about a point of view.

I do know the difference, I just think you are interpreting my words wrong. I believe that there is no problem with same sex marriage, I even encourage it. But that does not mean I am going to pray for it to one god or another

And I am not asking you to. All I am doing is arguing that the Religious Institutions should not impose their opinion on same sex legal pairings (I am avoiding the term marriage as that may be constued to be a religious concept) on those that do not follow their teachings. The point of this thread was, as I understod it, what is wrong with religion. I find a lot wrong with religion without finding anything wrong in the personal beliefs of other people.

I am an atheist, and I think religion does do a whole lot of good things, and religious people can be very good people.

Here are the problems I have with religious people, though: (Let me put emphasis on the word SOME religious people, first. Some.)

1) They believe they have the right to tell other people how to live their lives. Like, they would rather a child be in an orphanage than in a loving home with gay parents.

2) They flat out ignore scientific facts solely on the basis that they don't want them to be true and they're inconsistant with their assumptions. Like, they don't want kids learning about evolution just because it contradicts their beliefs.

If you believe that Adam and Eve were created by God, white, 6000 years ago, a week after the creation of the world, fine. Those are your beliefs, a story you live your life by.

But don't act like you're entitled to have the rest of the world go along with you if observeable facts seem to contradict that story. Accept that other people have other ideas about how the human race came into being and don't try to insert your beliefs into laws or education.

I am an atheist, and I think religion does do a whole lot of good things, and religious people can be very good people.

Here are the problems I have with religious people, though: (Let me put emphasis on the word SOME religious people, first. Some.)

1) They believe they have the right to tell other people how to live their lives. Like, they would rather a child be in an orphanage than in a loving home with gay parents.

2) They flat out ignore scientific facts solely on the basis that they don't want them to be true and they're inconsistant with their assumptions. Like, they don't want kids learning about evolution just because it contradicts their beliefs.

Those things are more depended on the personality of such people than the religion and/or belief they follow. I mean, I know of atheists and agnostics that behave in much the same way.

Those things are more depended on the personality of such people than the religion and/or belief they follow. I mean, I know of atheists and agnostics that behave in much the same way.

Absolutely true.

I'm sick of atheists who try to get nativity scenes taken down and such.

yes I've actually heard of Agnostic's being those who believe in one or more higher powers but do not belong to any one denomination. They do this because they cannot prove or disprove any one god over another
Uh... no...

I'm an agnostic, I don't believe it possible to know whether any supernatural entity exists, regardless of its affiliation with any particular religion. If I die tomorrow I know that it's quite possible there's nothing afterwards, it's also possible that maybe there is, I won't know until it happens however, and by then whatever happens happens and I'll just go with the flow even if that flow is oblivion.

To just return, for a moment, to why some atheists try so hard to "convert" people... It seems to mostly be for exactly the same reasons as why certain religious folks do the same. To outline a few:

Honeymooning - The atheist has just discovered this wonderful new belief system and is so infatuated with it that he feels he must enlighten all the other people out there who are "blind" or "deluded" because they believe differently. Much the same as the typical newly born-again Christian.

Rebellion - Everyone around the atheist is religious! He feels he must convince all those horrible religious people that they are WRONG so they won't "oppress" him anymore! FIGHT THE POWAH!! Often Christians or other religious people will do the same if they feel their immediate environment is saturated with yucky atheism or evil secularism.

Spoiling for a fight - The atheist doesn't care where he gets an argument, as long as gets one and gets to offend people. The fact that attacking religion is an easy way of offending people without making himself look like he's as stupid as his target is basically coincidence. This ones pretty universal and can be applied to anyone who is a deliberately offensive arse, religious or not and any issue where offense is easily caused.

Being "helpful" - Just like a Christian who think's he's saving you from Hell by droning on and on about how you should convert and let Jesus into your heart, the atheist thinks he's doing you a favour by showing you the error of your ways and letting you know that what you believe is so obviously incorrect. Once you see, through his very convincing arguments, how wrong you are, you'll thank him for his help.

Pure, simple personal arrogance - Duh, the atheist MUST be right. He believes this crap, so obviously it must be true, right? Since he's obviously more intelligent and reasonable than those poor, deluded fools following their stupid religions. I'm sure I don't need to explain how this is similar to some religious attitudes.

So.. basically, there is little to no difference between the reasons an atheist feels he must convert everyone who thinks different and the reasons a theist feels he must do it. None are really good reasons and there should be a great deal more minding of one's own damn business all around.

Absolutely true.

I'm sick of atheists who try to get nativity scenes taken down and such.
Are the nativity scenes put up on public property? If so, then I take issue with them being there.

Absolutely true.

I'm sick of atheists who try to get nativity scenes taken down and such.

I'm sick of christians who don't let me put an effigy of satan on public property

That's a load of crap. We're arguing for our beliefs, that's all.

And PsychoticDan affirms Ramidi's point.

If you're debating your beliefs against another, your taking an action to affirm your beliefs to another; regardless whether your intention is to convert [aka convince] the other person; thus engaging in an act capable of initiating a conversion in the other.

Conversion happens by discourse, and conversion happens by violence... Violent conversion is not the only form however. Neither I nor anyone I know with similar beliefs was converted to these beliefs by violence. I'm not Roman Catholic, I nor any one of my friends attended the Crusades (we are significantly too young for that), nor took part in the Inquisitions; and neither did that preacher standing on the street corner who you want to assail against by heaping condemnation on for past acts by people he did not know, before he was born. I might as well find out any bad actions your ancestors did, and hold you accountable for it.

Are the nativity scenes put up on public property? If so, then I take issue with them being there.
Why? They are meaningless, which is to say just pretty decorations, unless you personally interpret them to be religious messages.

So.. basically, there is little to no difference between the reasons an atheist feels he must convert everyone who thinks different and the reasons a theist feels he must do it.

I disagree. There IS a difference. Religions like Islam and Christianity are proselytizing. They incourage and form an organized support network for the intentional spreading of the religion. There is no such equivalent in atheism.

And atheism is not a "system" of belief.

I disagree. There IS a difference. Religions like Islam and Christianity are proselytizing. They incourage and form an organized support network for the intentional spreading of the religion. There is no such equivalent in atheism.

And atheism is not a "system" of belief.

True. You have to 'do' things to be(come) part of a religion and/or faith. You just 'are' atheist. Or not :p .

Yup, that's pretty incorrect. But the shopkeeper is liberty to decide wether or not he/she will sell alcohol in his shop on sunday. After all it's his shop and if you don't like it you can go to another shop.

However, if I made a shop and said I don't sell stuff to religious people that would be considered discrimination. Icky point there.


The solution would be that you buy your wine on saturday ;) .

The shops themselves don't decide not to sell, on a shop by shop basis. It is State law. If I'm not working, and I think I might want wine on Sunday, I get it earlier... but it can be pretty annoying to finish an 80 hour week, and not be able to get a drink, if I want one. (I hardly ever drink, anway... which actually makes it MORE infuriating to NOT be able to, if I want to).

i think that, while it might not technically qualify, is is practical to add in one more definition of agnostic. one who has a vague belief in "god" but feels that there is no way to know exactly what religion (if any) he expects us to follow.

many many people have a deepseated belief in the divine but have no belief in any structured way of dealing with it. those i know who feel this way consider themselves agnostic.

in new mexico we arent as strict. you can buy alchohol after noon on sunday.

So - Agnostics and... Agnostic Deists?

Mexico doesn't sound too bad... :)

The shops themselves don't decide not to sell, on a shop by shop basis. It is State law. If I'm not working, and I think I might want wine on Sunday, I get it earlier... but it can be pretty annoying to finish an 80 hour week, and not be able to get a drink, if I want one. (I hardly ever drink, anway... which actually makes it MORE infuriating to NOT be able to, if I want to).
That's wierd as I assumed you had a seperation of curch and state in the US.

Anyway, Im actually currently writing a dissertation on religion and mental health, and it seems that it is generally beneficial in many ways. except, funnily enough, for pascals wagerists. ie people who dont have a deep personal belief, but are religious out of fear of hell, or the unknown, or for utilitarian reasons. It sends them mental. the important thing, whether you are a christian, buddhist, atheist or whatever, is to be true to what you know is right.

A christian may know beyond doubt that God exists, just as I know he doesn't. One of us is obviously wrong, but that deep personal belief and sureness still helps us both stay sane. Someone who just goes to church out of habit or obligation, or to socialize, or just to be sure they dont piss god off, will not get these benefits.

So jump off that fence! the grass is greener on both sides.
I can't jump off, I'm too scared!
Do we have a case to file a law suit? :o

Yep, debate is an attempt to convert... .

Poppycock.

Unless you mean, that's what it is, for YOU.

I disagree. There IS a difference. Religions like Islam and Christianity are proselytizing. They incourage and form an organized support network for the intentional spreading of the religion. There is no such equivalent in atheism.

Irrelevant. Professional missionaries are a completely separate issue. Western-style atheists don't have door-knocker proselytism (yet), but neither do many churches or mosques. I'm not talking about missionaries, I'm talking about Joe Christian or Reg Atheist who goes around trying to "convert" everyone he sees.


And atheism is not a "system" of belief.

Sure it is. It's just not a prescribed "one-size fits all" belief system like certain forms of theism are. Each atheist generally has his own way of being an atheist, but it's still a belief system, just an individual one. You can pull out the old "lacks belief" chestnut, but that doesn't preclude that particular lack being part of someone's overall belief system.

That's wierd as I assumed you had a seperation of curch and state in the US.

On paper, perhaps.

The US is basically a Christian theocracy, despite the aims of it's founders, or the protestations of it's Constitution.

And PsychoticDan affirms Ramidi's point.

If you're debating your beliefs against another, your taking an action to affirm your beliefs to another; regardless whether your intention is to convert [aka convince] the other person; thus engaging in an act capable of initiating a conversion in the other.


Not at all.

I debate my beliefs, because others misunderstand or misrepresent them.

I couldn't care less if you have a 'god' or not.

Nice selective quoting there. If you examine what I said I made a difference - clearly - between faith (Belief if you will) and religions. Religious institutions are part of our society, but they are far from being social institutions in their intent and purpose. The RC church is the wealthiest organisation on the planet, but do they use this wealth to help resolve social problems? No. They comission works of art for the Vatican instead.

You made a difference... yes... However, it was a false difference... There is no difference between the two, they are related. If you assume people have a fundamental right to self-determination of belief; then you believe they have a right to self-determination over this belief in the manners they see fit; which includes the formation of institutional governments over their body of belief.

Religious institutions are not FAR from being social institutions... They are in FACT social instutions, built and maintained by societies (communities) of their people. And are you going to honestly sit there typing lies on your keyboard to sway the debate? The Roman Catholic Church (not to mention others), which maintain shelters for the homeless, soup-kitchens, and builds schools in undeveloped nations does nothing to benefit its community?


The point I am making is that one can have all the faith and belief one wants without there having to be a politicaly motivated organisation that describes itself as the guardian of your faith.

There doesn't HAVE to be to have faith, in all cases, but there existance of such is a RESULT of the faith/belief of that community. I have to have a body of elected elders, and cooperative legislative bodies between my own local "Community" and other communities of similtude; because I believe that is the proper way to do things in my religion. So I have to have an organization because that is what I believe. Are you honestly dictating to me I have no right to believe, while lauding your rights to your belief? There's a word for that.


You can be free to live according to your beliefs without needing a religious institution to provide the conditions.

If you're claiming a denial of my own instutitions, you're telling me that I CAN'T live according to my beliefs.


Only when you want to impose your beliefs on others in the society does the political aspect of these institutions become relevent.

These "institutions" aren't political, they are religious. And you're disclaiming their politic by engaging your own over them... How many times are you goign to sit their and type out hypocritical points?


If you do not want to drink alcohl, then don't - if you do not want to partake in trade on a holy day, then don't. You are free to act according to your beliefs without the church or religion being there as a political force.

The "church" is there because it is what I believe, and engages in standards upon me and others based upon what "we" as a religious society believe (hense social institution).


I do not have any intent to restrict the faith of others.

Maybe not consciously... It sounds like you certainly find your views valid, no matter how many logical fallacies you have to assert to "proove" them.


I simply object to the institutions of these faiths going beyond their remit and trying to control the behaviour of those that are not of their faith.

Yes, because we all know of all the laws the Roman Catholic Diocese, and various Presbyterian General Assemblies, UMC's Council and the SBC have passed to force religious belief upon the masses these days....

Really, decrying against such institutions for "wanting to control bahavior" why you yourself are not only advocating the control of their behavior, but what people in general are allowed to believe, why at the same time saying you think people should be allowed to believe what they want...

If you think that people have a right to belief in religious principles, then you believe they are a right to govern those religious principles as they see fit (which includes the formation of religious institutions)... If you do not believe the latter, you do not believe the former.

Irrelevant. Professional missionaries are a completely separate issue. Western-style atheists don't have door-knocker proselytism (yet), but neither do many churches or mosques. I'm not talking about missionaries, I'm talking about Joe Christian or Reg Atheist who goes around trying to "convert" everyone he sees.

I had people try and convert me, It doesn’t work but still a lot of people will try and do it. They are so surprises to know that I'm religious because I don't go to church, I'm a scientist and I have a slightly higher G.P.A. When they find out, they assume I'm not has smart has the average Joe and start to point out all my faults. Of course not all people are like this, my girlfriend and my best friend are atheists and we'll get into civilized debates on how I'm wrong and I just counter point it all (sometimes I win, sometimes they win). I never tried to convert them or they to me. OF course I might fall under that category of "some don't"

Im athiest, i dont care what others think, i dont care who they worship, in the end were all just people. Let us do what we want and quit oppressing us.

Perhaps religion is neither good nor bad, but rather a catalyst for human nature. So whether religion is worthwhile depends on your view of human nature.

The problem with religion, as opposed to spirituality is that it encourages dogma. And the power structures of the organisation can easily be corrupted as well, just as with any other human organisation. I also do not like how the Catholic Church raises certain individuals above others to sainthood.

My preference is atheism with morals. Which is what I like to think I have. Though I have surprised a few Christians and Muslims when I professed my ungodly ways.
Everyone has morals of some sort or another ... Show me an Athiest without morals (whatsoever)

Or did you mean Athiest with traditional Christian (or some other religion) morals

Quit oppressing us.

Im athiest, i dont care what others think, i dont care who they worship, in the end were all just people. Let us do what we want and quit oppressing us.

I'm religous, agree.

Edit: Not so much agree, but same thing, all though I do agree.

Why is it that some people fail to see the distinction between faith or belief and religion?

Anyone who fails to "see the difference" fails to do so, because there is no difference.... religion IS a belief. It's DEFINED by "belief".

I want to know why some people fail to realize that religion and belief are cooexistive... You can have belief without religion, but if you deny religion, you are in fact denying belief, since you're dictating to some people that they cannot hold their personal belief... You might as well as hydrogen and oxygen are legal, but water is outlawed...

Firstoff, I want everyone to know I'm an athiest so we know that I'm not just saying this to defend religion.

I noticed that there are a lot of atheists that like to go around converting people. Yes, I know that not all of them are like that, but it actually seems to me that an average atheist is more hostile to theistic beliefs than vice versa. But why do you not like religion so much?

We're talking about first-world "moderate" religions like the kind of things American Catholics do (people from those groups are the ones that we most otten come in contact with on these boards; there aren't many militant Muslims from Iran, for example). Other than their stands on abortion (which may or may not have merit), sexual repression, and gay rights, they are really very kind, moral people. Religion in the west does a lot of good things. It gets people to do community service, donate to charity, and stay loyal to their marriage partner. Many atheists portray christians as hostile, extremist maniacs, but there are only a few of those groups in the United States. Almost every religious person I have ever seen was reasonable, very polite, generous, and tolerant of my beliefs. As for the argument, "Religion is a waste because it makes people build expensive churches", well, that's a recreational expense, and if the money wasn't spent on churches it would go into some equally unproductive field like buying plasma TVs or whatever.

So, what are the main reasons that so many athiests want to convert non-militant (note that we are not talking about people in Al-Qaeda, I am asking this question about decent, non-militant people) religious believers? What's so bad about it? In my opinion, conservative politics aside, religion has many more advantages than disadvantages on a purely practical level. It makes people kinder, more willing to donate to charity, and gives many of them a lot of happiness.
First off, I couldn't care less about "converting" the superstitious. That implies an interest in making them think as I do, and where would be the fun in that? Sure, I would love it if people let go of their boring and out-dated superstitions, but that doesn't in any way equate to "converting" them.

To answer your question, though, I view superstition as roughly parallel to racism in terms of "how bad is it." If somebody is just quietly racist, and doesn't attempt to force the public to agree with them or pass racist laws, then I'm willing to ignore them. I'm never going to "respect" their views, but I'm willing to respect their right to hold those views. However, the moment they start expecting people to "respect" their views, I will get in their face. The moment they start whining about how unfair it is for schools to teach the (factual) reasons why racism is stupid, I will loudly object. The moment they start claiming that they are being persecuted because not enough people are legally compelled to be racists, that's the moment that they are making themselves my problem.

The fact that many religious people are kind, well-meaning, generous, intelligent individuals does not change my feelings on the subject. I know several individuals who are kind, well-meaning, generous, intelligent, and racist. I know people whose racist beliefs encourage them to donate to charity. I know people whose racist beliefs help to keep them on their best behavior. And, obviously, I know people who find much pleasure in their racist beliefs. None of these realities makes me believe, even for a moment, that racism is a good thing. Same goes for religion.

Frankly, if somebody needs God-belief to keep them from killing other people, that's not a person I'm too comfortable being around. If somebody needs God-belief to get them to donate money to charity, then they're a pretty crappy excuse for a human being. If they need God to give them a purpose in life, then they've got bigger personal problems then I care to deal with.

But the fact is, I'm not their mommy. There's no law against being a jackass, or against having a warped moral compass, so long as you maintain a certain standard of behavior. If a racist or a superstitious individual expresses a desire to explore alternatives to their beliefs then I will be quite willing to talk to them, but otherwise it's not my place to try to parent them.

So - Agnostics and... Agnostic Deists?

Mexico doesn't sound too bad... :)

mexico is a pretty cool place overall

NEW mexico is that mystical reason why arizona and texas dont share a border. a place that never entered my head as being good or bad or existing at all until i found myself living here. it turns out to be well worth the trip.

Poppycock.

Unless you mean, that's what it is, for YOU.

It does not have to be intentional... However, providing consideration for something, is providing the capacity to change something [convince/convert]... Merely because you refuse to acknowledge this logical cause/effect, does not change what it is by operation...

That's wierd as I assumed you had a seperation of curch and state in the US.
Yeah, we used to think so too...

Sure it is. It's just not a prescribed "one-size fits all" belief system like certain forms of theism are. Each atheist generally has his own way of being an atheist, but it's still a belief system, just an individual one. You can pull out the old "lacks belief" chestnut, but that doesn't preclude that particular lack being part of someone's overall belief system.
If atheism is a "system of beliefs," then "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. Atheism is NOT a belief system, it is the absence of one particular belief (the belief in God/gods). Claiming that atheism is a belief system is no different than insisting that non-belief in Santa Claus is a religion.

Not at all.

I debate my beliefs, because others misunderstand or misrepresent them.

I couldn't care less if you have a 'god' or not.

You debate your beliefs so they can be placed for consideration, which is part of the operation of convincing/converting another to your own. Your placing your beliefs open for affirmation or denial by the other party.

If your argument sways the others viewpoint, you just converted them to your view, intentional or not. Conversion is an internal operation by the other party... Your intent is of no matter.

mexico is a pretty cool place overall

NEW mexico is that mystical reason why arizona and texas dont share a border. a place that never entered my head as being good or bad or existing at all until i found myself living here. it turns out to be well worth the trip.


Oops. Missed the 'New'.

I've only been 'through' New Mexico, and then only in a through-the-corner-into-Texas way.

My most beloved author in the world lives just outside Santa Fe, though... so the reasons just keep adding up.

It does not have to be intentional... However, providing consideration for something, is providing the capacity to change something [convince/convert]... Merely because you refuse to acknowledge this logical cause/effect, does not change what it is by operation...

But, that isn't what you said, please don't be disingenuous.

You said "debate is an attempt to convert..." (emphasis, mine).

Now you appear to be talking about the possibility that someone might later thnk new thoughts because of something they overheard... and trying to imply that was what you had said previously.

I have not 'attempted' to convert anyone to 'Atheism'... or anything else. Everyone can find their own path to 'truth'.

Oops. Missed the 'New'.

I've only been 'through' New Mexico, and then only in a through-the-corner-into-Texas way.

My most beloved author in the world lives just outside Santa Fe, though... so the reasons just keep adding up.
now how could you mention that and not say just WHO your most beloved author is?

But, that isn't what you said, please don't be disingenuous.

You said "debate is an attempt to convert..." (emphasis, mine).

Now you appear to be talking about the possibility that someone might later thnk new thoughts because of something they overheard... and trying to imply that was what you had said previously.

I have not 'attempted' to convert anyone to 'Atheism'... or anything else. Everyone can find their own path to 'truth'.
Bingo. It seems like there was a sudden back-pedal from that original claim; first it was that atheists debate in an effort to convert others, but now there's this fuzzy notion of believers "converting themselves" in response to things that the atheist said. So which is it?

I have no problem with faith. People can believe anything they like. It's just religion that I'm opposed to. Why should priests tell believers what to believe? They aren't all-knowing are they? They are humans just like us, they can make mistakes, they can be tempted by the power they potentially have. See the crusades, the jihad and all other crimes made in the name of religion, that's why I dislike religion. Further than that, people can believe what they want.

You debate your beliefs so they can be placed for consideration, which is part of the operation of convincing/converting another to your own. Your placing your beliefs open for affirmation or denial by the other party.


No - I'm really not. You keep misrepresenting me.

I don't CARE if you 'affirm' or 'deny' my perspective... but, if you misrepresent it, I will present it more accurately.

It matters not, to me, whether YOU approve, or how valid YOU find it.


If your argument sways the others viewpoint, you just converted them to your view, intentional or not. Conversion is an internal operation by the other party... Your intent is of no matter.

Bckpedalling furiously?

Previously, debate was an 'attempt to convert'... now 'intent is of no matter'? You are running our of boundary to blur.

I am curious, though... I had thought you a Christian, yet now you seem to say "Conversion is an internal operation by the other party" (emphasis mine)... perhaps I had you wrongly pegged?

I have no problem with faith. People can believe anything they like. It's just religion that I'm opposed to. Why should priests tell believers what to believe? They aren't all-knowing are they? They are humans just like us, they can make mistakes, they can be tempted by the power they potentially have.
To play Devil's Advocate (har har), one could view priests as equivalent to teachers in secular subjects. Teachers aren't infallible, but they are often very useful to the process of learning. If a teacher simply orders their students to believe that 2 x 5 = 10 then they are a shitty teacher, but a good teacher can be instrumental in helping students understand why 2 x 5 = 10.

[/Devil's Advocate]

Of course, we require that teachers first acquire knowledge of the subject that they are going to teach. Priests don't know anything more about God than anybody else does, so it does seem silly for them to be "teaching" anybody about God. What they are really doing is teaching people about one of countless unsubstantiated theories about forces and beings that may or may not even exist. Anybody can make up a theory about God, and their theory will be every bit as well-supported as any existing religion or faith, so there is no standard by which to measure the "qualifications" of a God-teacher.

Region can be debated without suggestion that belief be abandoned in favour of reason.
That's a telling statement.

Anyways, no it can't, often. There are two sides to any debate. If I'm debating a religious person then they are debating me and they're just as ardent in their attempts to convert me only they probably have more at stake personally than I do.
Of course it can, if you understand what religion is. Of course, if you continue to equate it with nonsense it will continue to be nonsense.

Whether or not the opponent is trying to convert you is not the issue being addressed: the issue was atheistic conversion.

You made a difference... yes... However, it was a false difference... There is no difference between the two, they are related. If you assume people have a fundamental right to self-determination of belief; then you believe they have a right to self-determination over this belief in the manners they see fit; which includes the formation of institutional governments over their body of belief.
Try studying some basic theology. Faith is a prerequisite for a religion, but faith does not require a religion to exist. I can believe in God(s) without adopting the religious tennets of any given church whereas the opposite is not true. In following the tenets of any religion I am commiting myself to the theistic beliefs of that religion.
Very much the same then! No. I know plenty of people who have faith in God but are not religious. Why should some organisation be necessary for them to believe? Yes I give them the right to self-determination over their own beliefs. I do not give them the right to determination over the beliefs of others, and that is what religion - organised religion - does. If you are a Catholic then you must believe in transubstantiation. You are not given the option of believing in the trinity, the ressurectuion, tetc. etc. but not believing in the literal transubstantiation of the host into the flesh of Christ. What kind of freedom of self determination is that? The same type of demand exists in all other religions. It does not exist in faith.

Religious institutions are not FAR from being social institutions... They are in FACT social instutions, built and maintained by societies (communities) of their people. And are you going to honestly sit there typing lies on your keyboard to sway the debate? The Roman Catholic Church (not to mention others), which maintain shelters for the homeless, soup-kitchens, and builds schools in undeveloped nations does nothing to benefit its community?
Stone walls do not a prison make, nor does the occasional social act a social institution make. Or do you think that Microsoft is a social institution as it provides equipment and software for schools? What is the basic purpose of the RC Church? If it were to help people then why does it not use its trillions to do so? The basic purpose of the RC Church is to wield political influence in the world. Maybe you do not see this, in which case you do not want to see it and nothing will convince you of it.

There doesn't HAVE to be to have faith, in all cases, but there existance of such is a RESULT of the faith/belief of that community.
??? Huh ??? - I think you missed something out in this. I can not make sense of what you are saying.


I have to have a body of elected elders, and cooperative legislative bodies between my own local "Community" and other communities of similtude; because I believe that is the proper way to do things in my religion. So I have to have an organization because that is what I believe. Are you honestly dictating to me I have no right to believe, while lauding your rights to your belief? There's a word for that.
Fine. You have such if you wish. Just do not expect me to accept that your body of elders etc. has any right to tell me how to believe. So no, you have misunderstood me. If you wish to call a faith group a religion, then we understand different things by the term religion OK. I have no problem whatsoever with individuals grouping together with others of the same faith in community organizations. What I have a problem with is when that community organisation starts concerning itself wth the life style and beliefs of those that are not part of the organization.


If you're claiming a denial of my own instutitions, you're telling me that I CAN'T live according to my beliefs.
No I am not denying you the right to your organization. I am claiming my right to not be controlled in my actions by your organization.

These "institutions" aren't political, they are religious. And you're disclaiming their politic by engaging your own over them... How many times are you goign to sit their and type out hypocritical points?
I am not going to type out hypocritical points, and I have not done so in this thread. Do you understand what the term political means? It means involvement in setting the rules and structures for social interaction of all people in the society. When a faith group decides that it wants to set the rulres for those that are not of its faith, what do you call it, if not political? I am not trying to set rules for others to fllow. I am simply refusing to have the faith based rules of others imposed on me. If I shared the faith, then I could choose to live by those rules. If I do not, then why should I have to. I have to obey the political rules as I wish to be part of the general society, but unless the society is explicity theocratic, these political rules should not be faith based. (And I would leave a theocratic society - even if it were my faith that was empowered.)



The "church" is there because it is what I believe, and engages in standards upon me and others based upon what "we" as a religious society believe (hense social institution).
You believe the church. You do not believe in God, or in any other such entity, just in the church. A strange faith, but one you are entitled to. Now as to the rest - who are the 'we'? Your co-believers - in which case you are free to obey the tennets of your faith in the church. Everyone - in which case you are trying to impose your faith on society in general - wrong. As such a church is at best a community organization and not a social one. It does not cover all of society.

Maybe not consciously... It sounds like you certainly find your views valid, no matter how many logical fallacies you have to assert to "prove" them.

I can assure you that there are no logical fallacies in my views. I simply ask to be free of the imposition of the beliefs of others on my life stye and in return I will grant them the same freedom. There is a restriction that is necessary of course - implicit in what I have said - that I will now make explicit for you. I wish to be free to act and believe as I will to the degree that this freedom is commensurate with the same freedom being granted to all others with whom I share society. This means that if I do not wish you to impose your faith on me, I can not impose my faith on you. My problem with religion is that it tries to impose its faiths on others.

Yes, because we all know of all the laws the Roman Catholic Diocese, and various Presbyterian General Assemblies, UMC's Council and the SBC have passed to force religious belief upon the masses these days....
Success is irrelevant to intent. Where I happen to live, which is not the USA, the RC Church has succeeded in imposing its beliefs on people. Abortion is illegal here, due to the religious lobby. I object to that.

Really, decrying against such institutions for "wanting to control bahavior" why you yourself are not only advocating the control of their behavior, but what people in general are allowed to believe, why at the same time saying you think people should be allowed to believe what they want...
Learn to read and understand English is all I can say to this. Open your eyes.

If you think that people have a right to belief in religious principles, then you believe they are a right to govern those religious principles as they see fit (which includes the formation of religious institutions)... If you do not believe the latter, you do not believe the former.
I believe that people have the right to choose to be governed by religious principles, they do not have the right to impose theese on others. Is that clear enough, or are you too reactionary to consider that someone who does not share your faith is not opposed to you holding that faith.

But, that isn't what you said, please don't be disingenuous.

You said "debate is an attempt to convert..." (emphasis, mine).

Now you appear to be talking about the possibility that someone might later thnk new thoughts because of something they overheard... and trying to imply that was what you had said previously.

I have not 'attempted' to convert anyone to 'Atheism'... or anything else. Everyone can find their own path to 'truth'.

LOL... Yep, I said both... Because even entertaining a debate, is an attempt...

I'm not back peddling, you just seem to want to divorce your operations from their possible consequences...

Do atheists convert people... Yes they do... Have you converted people... Yes you have... Whether it's intentional or not is of no matter. You can equate it to involuntary conversion.... You didn't mean to convert them, but that's what you did... It's still a conversion.

LOL... Yep, I said both... Because even entertaining a debate, is an attempt...

I'm not back peddling, you just seem to want to divorce your operations from their possible consequences...

Do atheists convert people... Yes they do... Have you converted people... Yes you have... Whether it's intentional or not is of no matter. You can equate it to involuntary conversion.... You didn't mean to convert them, but that's what you did... It's still a conversion.
Darling, by your logic the word "convert" loses all meaning. Any interaction you have with any human being may potentially change or shape the way in which they think about the world. I'm sure Grave accepts that, by talking to other humans, he is communicating with those humans and will necessarily impact the thinking that is going on in their heads.

It's possible that by saying "hello" to somebody in the hallway I am interupting their train of thought and causing them to forget the phone number they were trying to remember just then. Does this mean that by saying "hello" I am attempting to cause them to forget that phone number? Of course not.

I have no problem with faith. People can believe anything they like. It's just religion that I'm opposed to. Why should priests tell believers what to believe? They aren't all-knowing are they? They are humans just like us, they can make mistakes, they can be tempted by the power they potentially have. See the crusades, the jihad and all other crimes made in the name of religion, that's why I dislike religion. Further than that, people can believe what they want.

If you deny religion, you deny belief... Religion IS a belief.

I'm very sick of this attempted divorce between the two being constantly persued here... You're effective telling people "I have no problem with faith..." and then decrying their faith....

Pick one, either you believe people have a right to self-determination of their faith (which includes the determination to form instituted religion amongst themselves), or that they have no right to self-determination of faith... If you decry agaisnt instituted religion, you're automatically telling people what they cannot and can believe in, and therefore dictating faith to another [making your previous statement a lie]...

Anyone who opposes others instituted religion, automatically opposes the right of others to their faith.

Irrelevant. Professional missionaries are a completely separate issue. Western-style atheists don't have door-knocker proselytism (yet), but neither do many churches or mosques. I'm not talking about missionaries, I'm talking about Joe Christian or Reg Atheist who goes around trying to "convert" everyone he sees.


I wasn't talking about missionaries either. ;)


Sure it is. It's just not a prescribed "one-size fits all" belief system like certain forms of theism are. Each atheist generally has his own way of being an atheist, but it's still a belief system, just an individual one.

Surely you can tell the difference between an organized religion with churches, priests, holy books, guides, ceremonies and festivals, holy cities, holy figures, guides on how to do everything in life, social structures like marriage and special diets... and atheism.

One is very clearly a system. The other is

You can pull out the old "lacks belief" chestnut, but that doesn't preclude that particular lack being part of someone's overall belief system.

PART of a system of belief. And all christians share the same basic system. All atheists share only one thing, and that lack of belief in a god is it.

Comparing the two as being equivalent and disregarding the entire global network of organized religion as being a motivational factor in "conversion" attempts is just ignorant.

If you deny religion, you deny belief... Religion IS a belief.

I'm very sick of this attempted divorce between the two being constantly persued here... You're effective telling people "I have no problem with faith..." and then decrying their faith....
You just don't get it do you?

Faith = personal belief in something, anything. I can have faith in my football team, in my cat, in the sun rising tomorrow.

Religion = an organised system of beliefs and behaviours.

Now why do you think they are the same? I guess you just do not understand English.

Anyone who opposes others instituted religion, automatically opposes the right of others to their faith.
No they do not. You simply do not understand what an instituted religion is. It is a political tool, nothing more, nothing less.

I am curious, though... I had thought you a Christian, yet now you seem to say "Conversion is an internal operation by the other party" (emphasis mine)... perhaps I had you wrongly pegged?

Oh, are you saying that Christians do not believe that conversion is an internal operation of the other person? If you are, you're wrong, I can't speak for all, but Christians do think that... including Calvinists... Though maybe you're thinking of Hyper-Calvinism, which views conversion as a completely involuntary operation external to the agent/person.

i think that, while it might not technically qualify, is is practical to add in one more definition of agnostic. one who has a vague belief in "god" but feels that there is no way to know exactly what religion (if any) he expects us to follow.
I propose a new term for such people: Indecisive.

The agnostic is one who declares we cannot know about God. These people are ones who do not know about themselves. They have not defined a relationship with God.

I propose a new term for such people: Indecisive.
Um, yeah, especially since "agnostic" does not mean anything close to what he proposes. An agnostic is a person who believes it is not possible to know whether there is or is not a God.

Some agnostics conclude that, in light of this, they will be atheist (in other words, since there is no reason for them to believe in God, they will not believe in God).

Other agnostics decide that, even though they cannot know whether or not God exists, they will choose to believe in God. The distinction between an agnostic believer and other believers is that an agnostic believer has fully confronted the fact that they do not, and cannot, know if their beliefs are correct. These agnostic believers are very rare animals.

Still other agnostics conclude that they lack sufficient evidence to make any determination at this time. This is not to be confused with people who "can't make up their mind." This kind of agnostic HAS made up her mind: she is quite certain that there is not enough information to decide whether or not there is a God. There's no indecision on the subject, she simply decides that she will not assert belief or disbelief in this topic until more information is provided.

An indecisive person is somebody who hasn't made up their mind. That's a whole different story.

I'm just trying to say some of the people posting put way too much stock in the word convert, in this instance it means the same thing as convince, but people do not pay attention to convince so much as they do convert.
No, it doesn't mean the same thing, though it could. Conceding a point in a discussion does not require me to change my relationship with god.

Why is it that some people fail to see the distinction between faith or belief and religion?
Because "the institution of religion" is not "religion"?

No, it doesn't mean the same thing, though it could. Conceding a point in a discussion does not require me to change my relationship with god.
Could you please pass that along to American evangelicals? :)

It really freaks me out how many of them react to innocent debates. It's like the Creationism thing: there are people who are utterly convinced that belief in natural selection will cause all your God-belief to ooze out of your ears. It makes it very hard to have any meaningful discussions, because anything you say may be perceived as an effort to force them to reject God.

Believe it or not, even fanatical anti-superstition advocates like myself are usually NOT out to de-convert the religious. We have other things on our mind (goat sacrifices, making fetus s'mores around the Beltane fires, homosexuality, etc...)

Um, yeah, especially since "agnostic" does not mean anything close to what he proposes. An agnostic is a person who believes it is not possible to know whether there is or is not a God.

Some agnostics conclude that, in light of this, they will be atheist (in other words, since there is no reason for them to believe in God, they will not believe in God).

Other agnostics decide that, even though they cannot know whether or not God exists, they will choose to believe in God. The distinction between an agnostic believer and other believers is that an agnostic believer has fully confronted the fact that they do not, and cannot, know if their beliefs are correct. These agnostic believers are very rare animals.

Still other agnostics conclude that they lack sufficient evidence to make any determination at this time. This is not to be confused with people who "can't make up their mind." This kind of agnostic HAS made up her mind: she is quite certain that there is not enough information to decide whether or not there is a God. There's no indecision on the subject, she simply decides that she will not assert belief or disbelief in this topic until more information is provided.

An indecisive person is somebody who hasn't made up their mind. That's a whole different story.

This might be one of the best explanations of the different categories of agnostics. Thanks for this post Bottle.

For the record, I'm a part of the last mentioned group. The 'true' agnostic.

This might be one of the best explanations of the different categories of agnostics. Thanks for this post Bottle.

I've had lots of practice. I've found that people misunderstand agnosticism even more often and more profoundly than they misunderstand atheism (and that's really saying something). It bothers me when people portray my beliefs as mere indecision, considering that I've put a lot more time and thought into my beliefs than most religious individuals have put into their own. I've probably spent more time researching religious beliefs and philosophical traditions than 99% of sane human beings, yet my conclusions get brushed aside as though I just "couldn't make up my mind."

Damn insulting, that!


For the record, I'm a part of the last mentioned group. The 'true' agnostic.
As long as an individual fully embraces the fact that they cannot know about the existence of God/gods, I think that makes them a "true" agnostic. But I'm part of the third category as well: I would no more assert belief in the existence of God than I would in the existence of Santa Claus, and I would no more assert that "there is no God" than I would assert "there is no life on other planets."

I don't know if this been raised before but I'd like to point out that atheism and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Many religon have atheistic belief. Take Buddhism for example: they don't believe in a god.

So atheist trying to convert can simply be doing what every other religon does: trying to convert others to the one true way.

I don't know if this been raised before but I'd like to point out that atheism and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Many religon have atheistic belief. Take Buddhism for example: they don't believe in a god.

So atheist trying to convert can simply be doing what every other religon does: trying to convert others to the one true way.
I think atheists just want to kill fetuses...
and euthanasia, and stem cell research, and gay rights, and goat sacrifices, lots of goats...

You just don't get it do you?

Faith = personal belief in something, anything. I can have faith in my football team, in my cat, in the sun rising tomorrow.

Religion = an organised system of beliefs and behaviours.

Now why do you think they are the same? I guess you just do not understand English.


No they do not. You simply do not understand what an instituted religion is. It is a political tool, nothing more, nothing less.

Faith == belief... Both are synonymous... Both are akin to confidence in something, someone, or some idea.

Religion is organized faith/belief.... Religion is composed of people with individual faith/belief organized together.... Denial of the formation of the religious institution is denial of the right of the people composed of that institutions individual operation of faith/belief.

I perfectly understand what an instituted religion is... It is a personal tool by the body of believers to govern themselves under... The only thing "political" about it, is that it is the body politic of its own members.

You also have no concept what-so-ever as to the "social institution"... A social institution is not some wide-reaching community serivce group... A social institution is an institution established by the society to which is serves...

In relation, a religious institution, is social; it is the society of those holding to the same or similar religious beliefs, established by that community to govern it. HOW it is governed varies, the operations and services it provides varies, all from one form of institution to another... Much like in the real world national government, if the institution does not serve its community as the community sees fit, factions eventually occur, resulting in opponents forming new societies [social institutions] to govern themselves....

Why would one join a society it does not possess commonality with? Since we're not living in the time of the Crusades, and the Inquisition is not at force buring people at the stakes, in all sorts of horrendous acts of forced conversion, you can drop the mention of them, they lend no support nor validity to your argument at this present time... Change societies... You were obviously capable of changing, and since you're posting on this forum, I'll assume you were not nailed to a stake and set on fire by some Grand Inquisitor for attempting such...

the only thing that bothers me about (organised) religion is the vacant, misty eyed expression that comes over adherents faces when they start referring to their religion or using their religion to argue a point or when they are in their places of worship. oh, and the fact that arguments based on religion necessarily rely on faith in that religion to make any logical sense and so are impossible to argue against without becoming thoroughly exasperated.

one of my friends recently became a christian (in the last couple of years) and the change that came over her was quite disturbing. she used to be one of the most progressive and critical thinkers i knew and she had great taste in music and had free use of language. now, her views have become decidedly conservative and reactionary, she'll accept any action or decision by her church or one of its member's without out criticism (constructive or otherwise), she's thrown out most of her music collection and now only listens to christian rock, and she won't utter even the slightest profanity. and she'll take any opportunity to tell whoever will listen that she loves god, even over her family and friends:eek: . to me this is mental :confused: :rolleyes:

Faith == belief... Both are synonymous... Both are akin to confidence in something, someone, or some idea.

Not quite. Faith is a type of belief, but not all beliefs are faith.

This might be one of the best explanations of the different categories of agnostics. Thanks for this post Bottle.

For the record, I'm a part of the last mentioned group. The 'true' agnostic.
I'm the rare animal. ;)

They are good definitions, indeed.

I propose a new term for such people: Indecisive.

The agnostic is one who declares we cannot know about God. These people are ones who do not know about themselves. They have not defined a relationship with God.
nooooo it has to be a greek word.

until there is a nice greek phrase for people who think that there probably IS a god but feel there is no way to know what religion is best, im gonna use agnostic for them.

I don't hate religions, they have a right to believe what they want, I just like to debate with them to try and find out why they believe what they believe.

what I DO have a problem with though, is when laws are made based on beliefs of this religion. I don't mean like 'Thou shalt not kill' because that's pretty obviously immoral, but other beliefs, like forcing schoolchildern to learn creationism as a science instead of a religious belief,and having the 10 commandments in every single classroom () not as a religious belief.

It just seems like they're trying to brainwash people into believing what they believe, however strange , and not letting them work it out for themselves.

I don't despise their beliefs, although I don't undersand them personally; I couldn't care if they worshipped 30 foot long invisible worms that they believe created the world, it's just that they always seem to be patronising us for (what seems to me to be) more rational and justified beliefs.

As long as an individual fully embraces the fact that they cannot know about the existence of God/gods, I think that makes them a "true" agnostic. But I'm part of the third category as well: I would no more assert belief in the existence of God than I would in the existence of Santa Claus, and I would no more assert that "there is no God" than I would assert "there is no life on other planets."
Verily so. That would put you in the category of the 'non-conformist', using the word in lack of a better one.

*joins Bottle in the non-conformist club*

nooooo it has to be a greek word.
How about Rome? Indecisione.

To play Devil's Advocate (har har), one could view priests as equivalent to teachers in secular subjects. Teachers aren't infallible, but they are often very useful to the process of learning. If a teacher simply orders their students to believe that 2 x 5 = 10 then they are a shitty teacher, but a good teacher can be instrumental in helping students understand why 2 x 5 = 10.

[/Devil's Advocate]

Of course, we require that teachers first acquire knowledge of the subject that they are going to teach. Priests don't know anything more about God than anybody else does, so it does seem silly for them to be "teaching" anybody about God. What they are really doing is teaching people about one of countless unsubstantiated theories about forces and beings that may or may not even exist. Anybody can make up a theory about God, and their theory will be every bit as well-supported as any existing religion or faith, so there is no standard by which to measure the "qualifications" of a God-teacher.

If all God-teachers were merely charismatic cult leaders, then yes, I would agree with you. But you don't have to rely merely on charisma and a lack of brainpower in your subjects to make a religion, and a lot of religious people really do try to infer knowledge about God in the same way we infer knowledge about geometry. If you don't believe me, try talking to a Jesuit priest sometime. To the extent that they succeed, I think provides us with a gradation for what makes a "qualified" God-teacher.

To be honest, I'm usually shocked by the sheer vehemence with which some atheists reject the mere possibility that a Christian can be a good person. If you look at history, yes, there will be blood on the hands of just about any religion. You will also find kooks in any religion. But you will also find very knowledgeable, intelligent people doing very good things out of a sense of religious conviction. But I don't see that some atheists even see such a distinction, which is as flawed an understanding of human behavior and history as Fred Phelps has. If you are going to have an accurate understanding of history, then yes, you will have to admit that Christianity spawned the Inquisition. You will also, however, have to admit that the very first civil rights workers in the Western World were the very same Jesuits who were working the Inquisition; they were the first to try to protect Native Americans from the excesses of Spanish colonial rule. Sure, people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are fascist bigots. But you would never have had a civil rights movement work without religious men and women like Malcom X, Martin Luther King Jr., and Rosa Parks. To recognize only one or the other is to not understand history.

To put it very bluntly, I think that some atheists have spent so much effort fighting the monster in the church that they have become monsters themselves. Granted, this is almost a given in the human condition, but it doesn't make it any easier to tolerate.

nooooo it has to be a greek word.

until there is a nice greek phrase for people who think that there probably IS a god but feel there is no way to know what religion is best, im gonna use agnostic for them.

Agnostic is the most fitting term.... I think the general problem is that many view it as being too broad.... which is generally why you can apply other words to it to narrow its scope...

Agnostic can reffer to anyone who does not for certain maintain [G/g]od[s] existance, whether they be Atheistic, Theistic or what-not types of agnostic. [Another problem I have with agnostic, which always makes me look my sentences over again, is that the word is both a noun and a adjective at the same time.... And it just seems to look wrong afterwards...]

How about Rome? Indecisione.
that is better although it still should be greek

actually, it should be a greek word picked by those whom the concept fits. otherwise its like calling apaches apaches because thats the word the zunis used for them (meaning enemies)

Not quite. Faith is a type of belief, but not all beliefs are faith.

Thank you Bottle.

I believe that alien life forms exist (well I would wouldn't I), but I do not have faith in this. I do not use it as a guiding principle for my life, I do not place unquestioning trust in it.

If all God-teachers were merely charismatic cult leaders, then yes, I would agree with you. But you don't have to rely merely on charisma and a lack of brainpower in your subjects to make a religion, and a lot of religious people really do try to infer knowledge about God in the same way we infer knowledge about geometry. If you don't believe me, try talking to a Jesuit priest sometime. To the extent that they succeed, I think provides us with a gradation for what makes a "qualified" God-teacher.

Again, they are obviously qualified to teach their particular "God-model." They also are often very familiar with the history and structure of their religious organization, and this knowledge can be very useful for putting various beliefs into context.

I guess my point was that priests etc. are no more qualified to teach me about God than anybody else, because they don't know any more about God than anybody else, but they may be more qualified to teach me about particular systems of God belief. In this regard, they would be sort of like a philosophy prof; they can teach you about the various ways that other people have tried to answer certain questions, even if they don't know the absolute answers to those questions.


To be honest, I'm usually shocked by the sheer vehemence with which some atheists reject the mere possibility that a Christian can be a good person. If you look at history, yes, there will be blood on the hands of just about any religion. You will also find kooks in any religion. But you will also find very knowledgeable, intelligent people doing very good things out of a sense of religious conviction. But I don't see that some atheists even see such a distinction, which is as flawed an understanding of human behavior and history as Fred Phelps has. If you are going to have an accurate understanding of history, then yes, you will have to admit that Christianity spawned the Inquisition. You will also, however, have to admit that the very first civil rights workers in the Western World were the very same Jesuits who were working the Inquisition; they were the first to try to protect Native Americans from the excesses of Spanish colonial rule. Sure, people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are fascist bigots. But you would never have had a civil rights movement work without religious men and women like Malcom X, Martin Luther King Jr., and Rosa Parks. To recognize only one or the other is to not understand history.

Sure, there are atheists who don't think Christians can be good people. However, if we want to be fair about this, the overwhelming majority of American God-believers feel that an atheist cannot be a moral person. There have been a couple of recent studies documenting this.

The image of hateful atheists gets blow way out of proportion. Most "new" atheists will go through a bout of anti-religious fervor, kind of like how pretty much everybody is a total jackass for a couple weeks after they read Atlas Shrugged for the first time. But it would be irresponsible and inaccurate to try to judge atheists based on this brief window, especially since a great many non-believers never go through it at all.

In short: yes, there are atheists who are jackasses, just like there are Christians who are jackasses. Yes, we should all remember that being an atheist isn't an innoculation against jackassery, just like Christ-belief isn't a guarantee that you'll be Christ-like. Most people, believer or non-believer, aren't jerks, and it's stupid to make our discussions about the minority who are jerks.


To put it very bluntly, I think that some atheists have spent so much effort fighting the monster in the church that they have become monsters themselves. Granted, this is almost a given in the human condition, but it doesn't make it any easier to tolerate.
I think atheist efforts are also greatly misunderstood or misrepresented.

It's a bit like the idea of the "angry black man." Any black guy who complains about racial injustice (whether it is real or perceived) tends to get viewed as just another angry black man. Women also experience this a lot; if somebody says something offensively sexist, and a woman calls them on it, she will often end up getting labeled as a "feminist bitch." Even if the actions of the black man, or the woman, or the atheist are not "angry" in any way, they will still be viewed through a certain lens.

Anybody who attacks the status quo is eventually going to be branded a rabble-rouser, no matter how polite they try to be. It doesn't matter how quiet or respectful an atheist is...eventually, some believer is going to start accusing them of being "hateful" or "angry" or "anti-religious" or whatever you like.

Firstoff, I want everyone to know I'm an athiest so we know that I'm not just saying this to defend religion.

I noticed that there are a lot of atheists that like to go around converting people. Yes, I know that not all of them are like that, but it actually seems to me that an average atheist is more hostile to theistic beliefs than vice versa. But why do you not like religion so much?

We're talking about first-world "moderate" religions like the kind of things American Catholics do (people from those groups are the ones that we most otten come in contact with on these boards; there aren't many militant Muslims from Iran, for example). Other than their stands on abortion (which may or may not have merit), sexual repression, and gay rights, they are really very kind, moral people. Religion in the west does a lot of good things. It gets people to do community service, donate to charity, and stay loyal to their marriage partner. Many atheists portray christians as hostile, extremist maniacs, but there are only a few of those groups in the United States. Almost every religious person I have ever seen was reasonable, very polite, generous, and tolerant of my beliefs. As for the argument, "Religion is a waste because it makes people build expensive churches", well, that's a recreational expense, and if the money wasn't spent on churches it would go into some equally unproductive field like buying plasma TVs or whatever.

So, what are the main reasons that so many athiests want to convert non-militant (note that we are not talking about people in Al-Qaeda, I am asking this question about decent, non-militant people) religious believers? What's so bad about it? In my opinion, conservative politics aside, religion has many more advantages than disadvantages on a purely practical level. It makes people kinder, more willing to donate to charity, and gives many of them a lot of happiness.
I'm too lazy to debate this, so I'll use my fave smiley:

:upyours::upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours::upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:




no, I'm not nine years old.

If all God-teachers were merely charismatic cult leaders, then yes, I would agree with you. But you don't have to rely merely on charisma and a lack of brainpower in your subjects to make a religion, and a lot of religious people really do try to infer knowledge about God in the same way we infer knowledge about geometry. If you don't believe me, try talking to a Jesuit priest sometime. To the extent that they succeed, I think provides us with a gradation for what makes a "qualified" God-teacher.

To be honest, I'm usually shocked by the sheer vehemence with which some atheists reject the mere possibility that a Christian can be a good person. If you look at history, yes, there will be blood on the hands of just about any religion. You will also find kooks in any religion. But you will also find very knowledgeable, intelligent people doing very good things out of a sense of religious conviction. But I don't see that some atheists even see such a distinction, which is as flawed an understanding of human behavior and history as Fred Phelps has. If you are going to have an accurate understanding of history, then yes, you will have to admit that Christianity spawned the Inquisition. You will also, however, have to admit that the very first civil rights workers in the Western World were the very same Jesuits who were working the Inquisition; they were the first to try to protect Native Americans from the excesses of Spanish colonial rule. Sure, people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are fascist bigots. But you would never have had a civil rights movement work without religious men and women like Malcom X, Martin Luther King Jr., and Rosa Parks. To recognize only one or the other is to not understand history.

To put it very bluntly, I think that some atheists have spent so much effort fighting the monster in the church that they have become monsters themselves. Granted, this is almost a given in the human condition, but it doesn't make it any easier to tolerate.

Indeed, they would likely be baffled at the academia that exists in mainstream seminaries, where theology classes are very little different [except in subject matter] from college philosophy courses... Most of them treat religion as if its something devoid of reason or logic.... Mostly because they have not bothered to study much indepth into how the belief systems are formed, built and established in their framework, nor in how they relate to one another.... They would also probably find it funny to see "Atheism" as a chapter under Theology Proper...

nooooo it has to be a greek word.

until there is a nice greek phrase for people who think that there probably IS a god but feel there is no way to know what religion is best, im gonna use agnostic for them.
Please do not use "agnostic" in that manner. Doing so is very rude.

Think of how a Christian would feel if I decided that I'm going to use "Christian" to refer to "Anybody who believes that Jesus was Satan."

I'm too lazy to debate this, so I'll use my fave smiley:

:upyours: [snip]



no, I'm not nine years old.

Eight then?

Please do not use "agnostic" in that manner. Doing so is very rude.

Think of how a Christian would feel if I decided that I'm going to use "Christian" to refer to "Anybody who believes that Jesus was Satan."
when an agnostic tells me that they are offended by a somewhat incorrect usage of the word, ill consider their feelings.

Eight then?

More like three. Would match up with the fact he just learned to walk.

LOL... Yep, I said both... Because even entertaining a debate, is an attempt...

I'm not back peddling, you just seem to want to divorce your operations from their possible consequences...

Do atheists convert people... Yes they do... Have you converted people... Yes you have... Whether it's intentional or not is of no matter. You can equate it to involuntary conversion.... You didn't mean to convert them, but that's what you did... It's still a conversion.

No, no, no. Entertaining a debate is NOT an attempt to convert. It CAN be, if one's position is to convert... but it isn't INTRINSICALLY an attempt.

Consequences ARE divorced from operations. If I throw an axe, and it hits you in the head, but I was AIMING for a tree... my 'attempt' was to hit the tree. The result may have been axe-trauma, but that has nothing to do with what was attempted.

Do Atheists convert people? Not that I've seen. Can you back your assertion?

Have I converted people? Not that I have ever known... again, can you back your assertion?

Darling, by your logic the word "convert" loses all meaning. Any interaction you have with any human being may potentially change or shape the way in which they think about the world. I'm sure Grave accepts that, by talking to other humans, he is communicating with those humans and will necessarily impact the thinking that is going on in their heads.

It's possible that by saying "hello" to somebody in the hallway I am interupting their train of thought and causing them to forget the phone number they were trying to remember just then. Does this mean that by saying "hello" I am attempting to cause them to forget that phone number? Of course not.

Exactly. Every stimulus I have ever received, has contributed to the 'me' that I am, now... you can't just single out elements in that and say... 'this was what made you what you are'... because it's never just one thing.

As you say, if someone says 'hello'... that really could be the straw that threads the camel through a plank in it's own eye...

Oh, are you saying that Christians do not believe that conversion is an internal operation of the other person? If you are, you're wrong, I can't speak for all, but Christians do think that... including Calvinists... Though maybe you're thinking of Hyper-Calvinism, which views conversion as a completely involuntary operation external to the agent/person.

Curious. When I was a Christian, 'we' were told that 'conversion' could only occur through the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

It wasn't something that the other person 'does', it is very much an external interference.

when an agnostic tells me that they are offended by a somewhat incorrect usage of the word, ill consider their feelings.

How about "deist"? It's not exactly what you are looking for, but it's closer than agnostic. I don't think there is a word for the situation you described...

Again, they are obviously qualified to teach their particular "God-model." They also are often very familiar with the history and structure of their religious organization, and this knowledge can be very useful for putting various beliefs into context.

I guess my point was that priests etc. are no more qualified to teach me about God than anybody else, because they don't know any more about God than anybody else, but they may be more qualified to teach me about particular systems of God belief. In this regard, they would be sort of like a philosophy prof; they can teach you about the various ways that other people have tried to answer certain questions, even if they don't know the absolute answers to those questions.

That being said, some religious teachers have categorically better means to arrive at the truth, and likely come to a better approximation of reality as a result. The fact that no group can talk directly about the noumenal world does not mean that we can't find better and worse ways of talking about the perceptive world.


Sure, there are atheists who don't think Christians can be good people. However, if we want to be fair about this, the overwhelming majority of American God-believers feel that an atheist cannot be a moral person. There have been a couple of recent studies documenting this.

The image of hateful atheists gets blow way out of proportion. Most "new" atheists will go through a bout of anti-religious fervor, kind of like how pretty much everybody is a total jackass for a couple weeks after they read Atlas Shrugged for the first time. But it would be irresponsible and inaccurate to try to judge atheists based on this brief window, especially since a great many non-believers never go through it at all.

In short: yes, there are atheists who are jackasses, just like there are Christians who are jackasses. Yes, we should all remember that being an atheist isn't an innoculation against jackassery, just like Christ-belief isn't a guarantee that you'll be Christ-like. Most people, believer or non-believer, aren't jerks, and it's stupid to make our discussions about the minority who are jerks.


I think atheist efforts are also greatly misunderstood or misrepresented.

It's a bit like the idea of the "angry black man." Any black guy who complains about racial injustice (whether it is real or perceived) tends to get viewed as just another angry black man. Women also experience this a lot; if somebody says something offensively sexist, and a woman calls them on it, she will often end up getting labeled as a "feminist bitch." Even if the actions of the black man, or the woman, or the atheist are not "angry" in any way, they will still be viewed through a certain lens.

Anybody who attacks the status quo is eventually going to be branded a rabble-rouser, no matter how polite they try to be. It doesn't matter how quiet or respectful an atheist is...eventually, some believer is going to start accusing them of being "hateful" or "angry" or "anti-religious" or whatever you like.

Point taken, and I admit that my analysis may be based on an unfair generalization. That being said, I don't necessarily think that it's unfair to say that there are lots of people, especially on the political left, who treat religious faith as some kind of mental illness. I've found fairly extensively in my participation at leftist organizations that the only thing that particular breed of atheist seems to dislike more than a religious conservative is a religious liberal. To me it's a bit mindboggling that they would turn on people who are trying to help them, but I've seen it happen and heard about it even moreso.

OMG, this thread exploded. I started it an hour ago and it's already up to 12 pages. Has to be the quickest-growing thread in internet history.

OMG, this thread exploded. I started it an hour ago and it's already up to 12 pages. Has to be the quickest-growing thread in internet history.

You haven't been here that long, have you? YASNY.

OMG, this thread exploded. I started it an hour ago and it's already up to 12 pages. Has to be the quickest-growing thread in internet history.
I don't think so. You started it at 1:38 PM. Currently It's 7:00 PM. Over 5 hours.

I think atheist efforts are also greatly misunderstood or misrepresented.

It's a bit like the idea of the "angry black man." Any black guy who complains about racial injustice (whether it is real or perceived) tends to get viewed as just another angry black man. Women also experience this a lot; if somebody says something offensively sexist, and a woman calls them on it, she will often end up getting labeled as a "feminist bitch." Even if the actions of the black man, or the woman, or the atheist are not "angry" in any way, they will still be viewed through a certain lens.

Anybody who attacks the status quo is eventually going to be branded a rabble-rouser, no matter how polite they try to be. It doesn't matter how quiet or respectful an atheist is...eventually, some believer is going to start accusing them of being "hateful" or "angry" or "anti-religious" or whatever you like.

Just reminded me of a quote by Bill Cosby:

"If a white man falls off a chair drunk, it's just a drunk. If a Negro does, it's the whole damn Negro race".

My personal reasons for converting people are.

The moderates support the extreemists. By simply claiming a belief in some of the same crap they build up those of the more extreem belief. You may notice it when you hear a Christian mention that there are so and so many Christians in the world.

Even the moderates have a purity conscience. A puity conscience has nothing to do with the greater good of others but rather the a imaginary conscept of right and wrong.

It's harder to reason with Christians even moderates becuase Christians belief the Bible isn't to be reasoned with.

The real athiest recognise the value of a love based ethos. That love is both beneficial to the self and the community while Christians believe in the purity ethos that purity benificial to the self and the community.

I don't convert, but I like to challenge the rationality of certain beliefs if I feel there's something not quite right. If you can convince me that your views are internally coherent then you'll get nothing but interested discussion from me. However, if it seems like you're holding things that don't stand up to scrutiny, I'll encourage you to rethink them.

To be honest, I'm usually shocked by the sheer vehemence with which some atheists reject the mere possibility that a Christian can be a good person. If you look at history, yes, there will be blood on the hands of just about any religion. You will also find kooks in any religion. But you will also find very knowledgeable, intelligent people doing very good things out of a sense of religious conviction.

True, and many, if not most of the greatest works of art were inspired by religion. Look at Handel's Messiah, the Sistine Chapel, and so on. Let's face it, the number of great works of art inspired by atheism is incredibly small (though I suppose one could count Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra and the Strauss tone poem it inspired).

I don't think so. You started it at 1:38 PM. Currently It's 7:00 PM. Over 5 hours.
OMG! He lost 4 hours!

Curious. When I was a Christian, 'we' were told that 'conversion' could only occur through the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

It wasn't something that the other person 'does', it is very much an external interference.

Depending on the soterology...

From my soterological view, the Holy Spirit's operation is in preparation, whereby the heart is changed... Conversion does not occur till the will acting upon the influx of desires actually changes its course in contact with external stimuli. While there is a measure of "interference" by the Holy Spirit, it is not direct interference whereby actions are forced against the will of the agent/person.

I'm very much mainline Reformed in soterology; which particular soterology was that of the church you had attended in the past?